House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 144
CONTENTS
Friday, September 25, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 144
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, September 25, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Building Canada Strong Act
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, Benjamin is 20 years old. He comes from my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix. School was not always easy for him. Although he struggled to finish his studies, he later completed a vocational diploma in sheet metal work. Now he works six days a week. He gets up at 4 a.m. to install ventilation systems in homes in Quebec, homes that he knows very well he will never be able to afford. Benjamin wrote to me with a very simple question: When will the government keep its promises?
According to Statistics Canada, the cost of groceries has increased by 29% since 2021. Evidently, Benjamin's wages have not kept pace. There are many people like Benjamin in Montmorency—Charlevoix, people who work full time but who have to put things back on the grocery store shelves every week because they cannot afford them and because they are struggling to make ends meet.
Following the last election in 2025, the minority government had to work with the opposition parties. We all had to work together to find solutions to move the country forward. At that time, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which made it possible to build at a pace not seen in generations. The government granted itself exceptional powers to deal with an exceptional situation, meaning the trade war with our neighbours to the south. Canadians were clear. They were asking us to work together in their best interests, to act for the common good and to avoid politicizing the situation.
The Conservatives said yes to Bill C-5 out of respect for Canadians. We did it not because we were naive, but because we wanted to be co-operative. For years, we have wanted to get this country building. We kept our word and respected the will of the people. We voted in favour of Bill C-5.
Today, I want to ask a question on Benjamin's behalf. What did the Liberals do with that power that was entrusted to them and with the co-operation that we extended to them out of respect for democracy? The answer is that they got a majority without voters returning to the polls, through agreements made behind closed doors. They bought themselves a majority and took control of Parliament.
The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Since then, there has been no shortage of promises.
Allow me to recap the slogans and announcements made since 2017 about the housing crisis.
In 2017, there was the Reaching Home program, part of the national housing strategy. The Liberals announced that housing would be built for all Canadians, that more homes would be built more quickly and that housing would be made affordable. There was also Build Canada Homes, which they said would unlock more housing development. These are nothing but slogans.
In 2024, they said it was time to build, and they proposed Canada's housing plan. They said they would increase supply, reduce costs and cut red tape. They said that every Canadian deserves a place to call home. Once again, these were just slogans.
In 2025, they unveiled “Building Canada Strong”, supposedly the most ambitious plan since the Second World War.
A promise is like a cheque. For 11 years, that cheque has always bounced for the same reason: insufficient funds. Since the Liberal government took power, there have been plenty of slogans and promises, but not many shovels in the ground. In the meantime, as I said earlier, grocery costs have risen by 29% since 2021, and the price of gas has increased by 23% or so in a year. One couple from Charlevoix, both 23 years old, wrote to me last week. To save money, they have to shop at three different grocery stores. They skipped taking a vacation because gas costs too much. That is the reality ordinary people are facing. That is the result of the Liberals' decisions.
The government says that the situation is urgent and that we need to act fast and pass Bill C-39 as fast as possible. This emergency did not come out of nowhere. It comes after close to 11 years of delaying and failing to get this country building; 11 years without diversifying our markets; 11 years without building the infrastructure that would have put us in a position of strength going into the negotiations with the Americans; 11 years of growing poorer instead of growing.
Does anyone find this reminiscent of the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? Well, the government has spent the past 11 years trying to look good to the rest of the world, inviting everyone to come and enjoy our services, and constantly asking Canadians to pay more for less. I want to come back to Bill C-5. It passed 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been designated as a project of national interest under that legislation. Meanwhile, a new Major Projects Office has been established and funded to the tune of $214 million over five years. That office cost $42 million last year alone. When I asked the director of the Major Projects Office how many major projects had been launched for that $42 million, she said none.
Worse still, more than six new federal agencies, offices or entities have been created. There is plenty of bureaucracy and administration, but nothing is actually being produced.
Today, that same government, which now holds a majority, is presenting a massive 250-page bill. It was introduced on Monday. The government is telling us once again that we need to move quickly, that we need to pick up the pace and move at a speed never seen since the last time we moved at a speed never seen before. Fifteen months later, it is back with the same promise and a catchier title that is a little more grandiose and impressive. It is just more smoke and mirrors.
I mentioned Benjamin earlier. Benjamin makes $800 a week. His pay goes toward the car he uses to get to work, groceries, rent, insurance and gas. In his letter to me, he wrote in all caps that every penny counts. When Benjamin asks for a raise, it will not be for little luxuries. It will be for groceries, rent, gas and insurance. Workers who are fighting for higher wages are not enemies of our economy. They are the ones who build it with their own hands at 4 a.m.
Members may recall that in the summer of 2025, 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants went on strike. What were they asking for? They were asking to be paid for the hours they work, that is, during boarding, during time spent waiting and during airport delays. These hours were unpaid. Less than 12 hours into this strike, the government invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to send them back to work. All they wanted was to be paid for the hours they work.
Part 3 of Bill C‑39 reforms section 107. The government is talking about creating a framework to prevent abuse. Workers are saying that this will make it almost impossible for port, rail and airline workers to invoke their right to strike. Those who have experienced the effects of the law tell us that they see things completely differently from what the government says. Our role here is to understand, analyze and defend the interests of workers and Canadians. The role of the opposition is to be loyal to the people and to the nation. I am not talking about administrative structures and organizations. I am talking about real people. I am talking about people like Benjamin. I am talking about standing up for Canadians who are working but still cannot make ends meet.
To be fair, there are some good points in the bill. For example, the “one project, one review, one year” approach is a very good idea. It is so good, in fact, that it was our idea. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk introduced it in the House as Bill C-375. In May 2024, the House rejected it by 177 votes to 150. The Liberals voted against it.
The Minister of Finance told us this week that the Conservatives do not have a monopoly on common sense, but it seems we laid claim to most of it before he came around. I do not, however, blame the government for having changed its mind in the end. It is good that the Liberals are discovering that they have their shortcomings, because the ideas we are defending here do not belong to any one party. They belong to all those who want to move the country forward, who want us to prosper as a society and who want to build a better future.
After 11 years of big announcements, Benjamin wants more than just good intentions. He wants things to work. He wants to see progress and results that make a difference for him. Another person wrote to me recently to say that Canadians are not asking for promises. They are asking for real, measurable results. This person asked us to spend less time playing politics and more time finding real solutions.
I want to suggest two very simple solutions. The first is that we do a real study in committee. I do not want to see the debates cut short or the committee voting to speed up the work because the government has a majority now. We need to listen to what workers, employers, experts and first nations have to say. We need to listen to people in regions like mine and our business owners. We need to hear from those who may be positively or negatively affected by the bill. We cannot analyze 250 pages in just a few days.
My second suggestion is that we need to actually stick to the schedule. The government is talking about taking one year to assess a project. There cannot be any hidden delays, any extensions granted behind closed doors or any claims that we need to understand that there is a backlog. That is a promise. If the government is promising that it will take one year, then the process needs to take one year from start to finish.
When the government tells us that this is urgent, that we need to trust it and grant it more power because there is a crisis, our duty is not to rush into anything. It is to slow down and read carefully, because every comma, every period and every sentence raises important concerns. It is because every comma affects a worker's wage. Every period affects a construction project in some region. Every sentence represents a promise made to Benjamin. We want to make sure that these promises do not end up as a bounced cheque this time.
Benjamin will get up at 4 a.m. tomorrow and head out to build a house he cannot afford. He does not want to hear any more slogans. He wants us to build a country where working hard is still enough. Slogans do not build anything. Construction sites do. It is high time we started building together.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the type of information the member put on the record is somewhat disappointing. He is saying that the price of gasoline is the federal government's fault.
An hon. member: It's called tax.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member says it is taxes. Just over a year ago, 18 months ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister and the government got rid of the carbon tax. That is 17¢ off a litre. The new government also put relief on the excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. At the end of the day, the new government with a new Prime Minister in 18 months has done a great deal on the issue of affordability, and we continue to look at ways we can improve affordability.
Why will the member not get on board and recognize good legislation when—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is always quite something to hear that.
First, the opposition is playing its part. We have offered up plenty of solutions here in the House, and the Liberals, unfortunately, are stealing our ideas. However, since they did not come up with these ideas themselves, they do not know how to implement them. They have scrapped the excise tax on gasoline, but temporarily and only partially. What we are calling for is the removal of all federal taxes to give families some real breathing room.
More taxes, more red tape, more bureaucracy—that is not the solution. It is high time they realized that the government needs to step aside and let our country grow so that, ultimately, we can all prosper together.
Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border.
The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives' co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause.
I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives' support once again to prevent this abuse of power.
Mr. Speaker, yes, once again, the Liberal government is using fear to govern and grant itself more power.
As we said, exceptional circumstances sometimes warrant an exceptional response or exceptional legislation. We passed that legislation in Parliament 15 months ago, but the only results we have seen involve what the Liberals do best, which is creating more bureaucracy, giving more money to their cronies and leaving less money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians.
We need to continue keeping an eye on them. We need to continue rising here in the House, out of loyalty to the people and to the nation, and we need to ensure that our laws work for people and that the government is not just using this crisis to play politics. Yes, we will be there to double-check every comma and to hold the Liberals to account for their decisions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the deputy government House leader rattled off some measures that the government undertook. My hon. colleague can explain that we supported those tax cuts for Canadians because we will always support making life more affordable for Canadians and saving them money.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, we supported the government in giving it more powers to build things at speeds not seen before. After 18 months of the government having those powers, what is his assessment of what it has accomplished?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, things are moving forward at speeds not seen in generations.
As I said in my speech, the current pace of things is unprecedented. Nothing is getting built, but money is being spent. The government allocated $42 million to the Major Projects Office, which has been scrutinizing paperwork for a year now without a single project getting off the ground. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying so. It comes from testimony given in committee by the Major Projects Office director, who said that $42 million had been spent without a single project being approved.
It would be a good thing if that kind of speed, not seen in generations, could move faster than a Ford Model T and finally move our country forward.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to the building Canada strong act. We find ourselves at a critical juncture in our nation's history. Around the world, global trade patterns are shifting, geopolitical instability is rising and competition for capital is fierce. For years, Canada has relied heavily on a single trading partner, leaving our businesses, workers and communities vulnerable to external shocks and sudden tariffs.
To secure our national sovereignty and long-term prosperity, Canada must build capacity for true economic self-reliance. Our government set an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade, unlocking new trade and attracting investment.
As a nation, we are now turning that potential into progress. Federal decision-making in Canada has been slow, fragmented and plagued by duplication. Projects that could create good-paying jobs and power our clean energy transition have faced regulatory paralysis, taking up to five years or more just to get answers. The building Canada strong act would address these structural bottlenecks directly through three interconnected pillars: accelerating major project reviews, modernizing supply chains and trade corridors, and modernizing collective bargaining and strengthening worker protections.
I know that significant legislation can raise concerns, so today I want to address questions that are being raised regarding environmental protections, labour rights and indigenous reconciliation and explain how this bill would address them.
A question that has been raised is, if we accelerate federal reviews, how do we do so without cutting corners or weakening environmental standards? I want to be clear that the building Canada strong act represents a reform of process, not a reduction of standards. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and building major infrastructure. We can and we must do both.
Under our current system, federal departments review projects consecutively. A proponent might spend two years completing an assessment under the Impact Assessment Act, only to start from scratch with separate sequential permits from Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. That is unnecessary duplication.
This bill would transition federal reviews from consecutive to concurrent workflows. Under the new framework, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would coordinate federal departments simultaneously. In plain terms, instead of making projects wait in line for one department after another, all federal agencies would work at the same time, together.
The federal government would commit to completing its review and delivering one comprehensive federal decision, whether it is a yes or a no, within one year once a complete application is submitted. The scope of environmental assessments would remain intact, incorporating health, social and environmental impacts, along with indigenous traditional knowledge.
Our government listened carefully during extensive consultations, where we received over 26,000 submissions. In response to this feedback, we have explicitly removed proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act jeopardy clause, so the Species at Risk Act would remain fully untouched and uncompromisingly protected.
Strong environmental protections remain a non-negotiable foundation of our approach, ensuring that economic growth and conservation go hand in hand. By identifying environmental considerations earlier in the process, this approach maintains environmental protection while providing greater certainty for communities and for project proponents alike.
The second area of feedback comes from our union workforce and labour representatives. Workers want to know that legislation will not restrict the constitutional right to strike or expand government intervention in collective bargaining. I firmly believe that a strong economy is built by well-paid, protected workers.
The building Canada strong act would preserve and enshrine the constitutional right to strike. The best, most durable agreements are those negotiated directly by workers and employees at the bargaining table.
To address disputes in critical supply chain sectors or disagreements that can leave negotiations stalled for months due to bad-faith bargaining from employers or unions, this bill would modernize the Canada Labour Code to help parties reach an agreement before a crisis occurs. For complex negotiations, we would be starting talks earlier and extending federal conciliation time. Rather than forcing a deal, a neutral conciliator would help manage discussions and work with employers and unions toward a fair compromise before a dispute escalates to a work stoppage. We would be introducing a special mediator to help resolve deadlocks. If talks stall, their reports would be published publicly within five days to hold both sides accountable.
Beyond dispute resolution, we would be investing directly in workers' everyday protections by strengthening workplace safety, by resolving complaints faster and by cracking down on wage theft. The building Canada strong act would ensure that as we grow our economy, we protect, respect and support the workers who build it.
The third thing I would like to address is our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. The Crown's duty to consult and accommodate is constitutionally protected. It is non-negotiable, and it would be fully mandated under this act. Economic reconciliation is embedded in this legislation through the indigenous advisory committees and through enabling indigenous equity ownership in major infrastructure. This bill would replace the confusing web of separate departmental reviews with a new Crown consultation hub, giving indigenous communities one single coordinated federal contact point for every project.
To grow our economy together, we must also modernize our trade corridors and transportation networks. Eighty per cent of Canada's non-U.S. trade moves through our marine ports. The building Canada strong act would establish a tell-us-once digital frame network. By transitioning from paper-based forms to UN-aligned electronic trade records, we eliminate duplicate filings across government departments and can unlock tremendous economic potential for Canadian exporters.
In conclusion, we will build a stronger Canada by standing with the people who build it. The building Canada strong act is an ambitious, integrated economic package. It would bring speed and certainty to project approvals while upholding world-leading environmental standards. It would respect section 35 indigenous rights while streamlining consultation. It would protect the constitutional right to strike while equipping workers and employers with modern tools to reach fair deals at the bargaining table.
Let us move forward together, support our workers, protect our environment and build an economy that is resilient, competitive and strong for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors and industrial corridors for the purposes of pre-approval.
This is an interesting dilemma, because the courts have already said that we cannot have a pre-approval if we are aware of a decision that might infringe on rights and title. We must consult and accommodate. In this equation, we are asking two questions of rights and title: designation of land and the activity. How will the government proceed if it does not get consent on either of these activities?
Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague. These are the kinds of conversations we need to have now in the House.
By setting up an indigenous advisory council, we will get in consultation right away on projects. Also, we will start earlier. If we know that projects are going to be in certain areas and certain ports, we are going to start environmental assessments and start working even before a project is put forward. If we are working within departments to do environmental assessments and consultations with indigenous communities in advance, then when things start, when a project comes forward, we will already have baseline data that can be used. Each project will be able to draw from that baseline data and use it moving forward. By doing that in conjunction with working consecutively and having the consultation hub, we can work a lot faster and work together to get things done while protecting indigenous rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments.
The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator.
Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited.
Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my French is not there yet to answer in French. I am getting there.
The Impact Assessment Act is still in place. Some of the projects that are used to going through the CER, the regulator, are still going to go through it, but it is an arm's-length process. By working together through the Impact Assessment Act and through the CER, we are going to make sure that these projects happen at arm's length and that thoroughness is done.
[Translation]
I, too, would like to thank my colleague from Ontario for his contribution to this debate.
At the beginning of his speech, he pointed out that the safeguards will still be there but that we are going to find a way to reduce delays and make a decision, whether positive or negative. I would like him to expand on that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, let us imagine going for a driver's licence. We have to get our driver's licence in one place, go to another place to get our picture taken, go to another place to get eye-exam certified and then go back to the first place and start that process over again. By consolidating the processes and making the departments work together concurrently instead of consecutively, we can get things done quicker. We can get our driver's licence a lot sooner.
Saying we are going to get things done in a year means it is a yes or no in a year. It does not mean it is a yes in a year. It means yes or no in a year. We just need to be more efficient and move faster so we can grow our economy for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Bill C-39 fixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building.
That brings me to this basic question: What happened to Bill C-5? Just over a year ago, Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 created the Building Canada Act to accelerate projects of national interest and provide a more coordinated and predictable federal approval process. The Liberals also created the Major Projects Office as a central point of contact.
At the time, the Liberals told Canadians that this framework would streamline approvals, reduce duplications and move major projects forward faster, yet only a year later they are back with Bill C-39, another major bill, another new framework and another promise that this time they will get it right. That raises a fundamental question. If Canada is not building fast enough, is the problem a lack of legislation or the Liberals' failure to implement the legislation Parliament already passed?
If the problem is bureaucratic coordination, then improve coordination. If the problem is insufficient resources, then provide the resources. If the problem is duplication, then remove it. If the existing legislation is outdated, repeal or consolidate it, rather than continually adding another layer. A new law does not magically solve an implementation problem; it simply papers over it.
This is why timing matters. Parliament created a new framework only a year ago, with clear objectives, clear authorities and a dedicated Major Projects Office, yet after 12 months, only a few projects have been listed, and none have been approved. If the existing framework has not delivered results, Parliament deserves to know why. What coordination challenges remain? What duplications persist? Why would adding another major piece of legislation suddenly resolve delays that clearly stem from execution, not from the absence of statutory authority? Before creating a new framework, Parliament should insist on a clear explanation of why the existing one has not delivered the results Canadians were promised.
That brings us to the one-year timeline, the centrepiece of the Liberals' argument for Bill C-39. At first glance, it sounds compelling. The Liberals say federal reviews and decisions would be completed within one year once all required information has been received. What happens when that year is not met? Is the project automatically approved? Does the government lose jurisdiction? Is there any consequence at all? The Liberals' own explanation make it clear that the clock begins only after the proponents submit comprehensive applications and finalize the required studies and information. Proponents may opt out of the timeline. Extensions and expansions may apply, including to complete indigenous consultations. There may be legitimate reasons for flexibility. Indigenous consultations cannot be rushed. Technical information cannot be ignored. Proponents may need additional time.
That brings us to the core issue, which is accountability. If the timeline can be extended, suspended or opted out of, what makes one year a binding commitment rather than another Liberal talking point? If the goalpost can be removed and there is no consequence for missing the targets, who is accountable? Who explains the delay: the department, the regulator, the minister or the lead assessor? Would Canadians be able to see how often timelines are extended or suspended and for how long?
A one-year target can be useful, but it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it is simply another promise without enforcement.
Ports illustrate the border problem. Canada's trade strategy depends on moving goods efficiently from producers to international markets. The Liberals say transportation infrastructure faces overlapping requirements, duplicative process and lengthy timelines. Bill C-39 proposed changes to improve trade corridors and modernize port governance. These are significant proposals.
Canada already has the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, Canada port authorities and the national trade corridors fund. Now Canada has the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. If those tools are not producing timely results, then the problem is not legislative gaps; it is operational bottlenecks that Bill C-39 does not directly address.
Consider the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in B.C. It underwent more than a decade of federal assessments. Its impact assessment was completed in 2023. It has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and yet it is still sitting there. Parliament should ask precisely what Bill C-39 will change for a project like this. Will it eliminate duplication? Will it coordinate the remaining permits? Will it establish clear responsibility? Will it produce a measurable timeline? Or, is it simply creating another layer of bureaucracy?
A trade corridor is not just a port. It is the entire chain: the producer, the truck or rail connections, the terminal, the port, the vessel and, ultimately, the customer. If one part is slow, the entire corridor is slow. Parliament should support efforts to build faster, but building faster requires implementation, coordination and accountability, not simply more legislation.
Two questions should guide our examination of Bill C-39. First, if the problem is implementation, why is another law the answer? Bill C-5 already created the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office to accelerate and coordinate major projects. Second, if the Liberals promise one-year decisions, what makes that a genuine commitment, if the timeline can be extended or suspended, and there is no consequence for missing it?
Those are the questions Parliament should keep at the centre of the examination of Bill C-39. Canada needs major projects, efficient ports, reliable trade corridors, and a regulatory system that provides certainty to investors, communities and indigenous partners. Another law is not the solution if the problem is implementation. Canada does not need more layers of legislation; it needs results.
[Translation]
I see that the members opposite want us to move on projects more quickly, to build faster and stronger. We all agree on that. My question is very simple. Can we count on them to move things along more quickly in committee too?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency.
Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another layer of bureaucracy?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER's mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines.
What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put into good implementation, we should reveal the implementation first, instead of just rushing through another new build that promises a one-year timeline, which is not going to happen.
Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing I enjoy more in this House than listening to my Conservative colleague from Richmond Centre—Marpole speak with such common sense. He lays it out very plainly and very clearly that legislation upon legislation is not the answer. We have heard from the Liberals repeatedly that, every time they implement new legislation, it is going to create speed and certainty. We have not seen any of that speed and certainty over the last 11 years. We have heard a lot of talk. We have seen no action and no results.
I wonder if my colleague would agree and would like to elaborate on that.
Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate briefly and ask my friend from Richmond a question.
This entire debate around the environmental impacts is as though Bill C-5 never passed. Bill C-5 says the government can break any law it wants to, including the Species at Risk Act or the Impact Assessment Act, if a project is of national interest. I know my Conservative colleagues may not agree with me that this is a bad thing, but I wonder if the Conservative caucus has noticed that Bill C-5 would be on top of Bill C-39.
Mr. Speaker, as I repeatedly said, we do not need another layer of bureaucracy, papers and legislation in order to build faster and more responsibly.
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words about Bill C-39, which, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, is primarily an economic bill. It is a set of measures. I am fully aware that it is a rather complete piece of legislation, let me put it that way, that is absolutely necessary in order to accelerate our economy and our economic growth.
We were elected, a year and a half or so ago, to build Canada strong and to rebuild the Canadian economy. To do that, we need to speed up the process of approvals. Basically, we need to get things done. In order to get things done, we do require several legislative changes to make sure the Canadian economy adapts to the new environment.
I start with the context of why we are doing this now. We are doing this now, first of all, because it has to be done. We would have had to have done this in any case to modernize and update our regulatory framework. However, the context right now is particularly complex and requires a major structural reform, which is what this bill would contribute, to achieve. The context is one of a trade war that we did not start. The trade war was imposed on us totally arbitrarily and totally without regard for the fact that the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy, at least for the past 30 years, were increasingly integrated, particularly our industrial sectors, which are completely integrated.
It is not the case that Canada is like a mini U.S. and that we produce everything here that is produced in the United States, only on a smaller scale. It is not that at all. The Canadian economy has specialized in a relatively small number of sectors and products that are completely integrated into the North American supply chain. Our neighbours to the south, particularly the administration, and we should not mix things up as it is the U.S. administration, has total disregard for that integration and has decided to disintegrate the North American economy, break it apart, saying it does not need anything we make here.
Well, it does need it, but regardless of that, it believes it does not need what we have here. Therefore we have to pivot. We have to change our structure. We have to make products that are in demand in the local market, so there is some import substitution going on. At the same time, we have to look for other markets, other opportunities, elsewhere in the world.
With this bill, we would try to accomplish that pivot. To do that, there are a number of things we need to do. First of all, we need to make sure we are actually able to approve projects, particularly in the infrastructure world. We have to improve our infrastructure. We have to improve our ability to move goods and people across this country. Massive improvements to our infrastructure are required, and the bill would accelerate the process.
I can already hear our friends from the Bloc Québécois saying that this would be a massive intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility and provincial jurisdiction. Let us be clear: What we are proposing to do would apply to federal legislation and federal regulations. We would not in any way be changing or forcing any sort of change in provincial regulations.
We clearly invite the provinces as well to participate in this process and to harmonize. In fact, seven provinces have already signed agreements with the federal government, so the objective we have, which is one project, one approval process and one year, that it gets done within one year, will speed things up if indeed the provinces are already onside. If they are not, well, then provincial legislation and provincial procedures will remain in place.
The objective is to build a stronger, more resilient economy, a more productive economy and ultimately a more independent economy.
By the way, we have also talked a lot in the House, since we came back, about affordability issues and the high cost of living, which is a fact and is top of mind for most Canadians. I will say two things about that. First of all, we do have the necessary social programs to help Canadians get over, or adjust and adapt to, this higher-cost environment. Social programs are important. In fact, a robust social safety net is one of the characteristics of Canada. Canada is Canada in no small measure because we care about each other and because we help people at the lower-income levels with targeted and somewhat generous social programs. We will continue to do that. In fact, we have added quite a bit to those social programs.
However, more fundamentally, the only way to improve affordability on a long-term, sustainable basis is to improve productivity. Improved productivity will lead to a much more efficient economy, which will allow incomes to go up. If incomes go up, then life becomes more affordable. The government, the state, cannot and should not directly regulate prices. That does not work. It has been shown in many instances in many other countries that it does not work. However, if we put in place policies that promote investment and promote productivity growth, incomes will rise, and then Canadians will be able to afford life and lead a better life.
There is also an issue with the supply side. There are certain areas where supply is an issue, namely in housing. In housing, one of the big contributors to the high cost of living, the high cost of rents and the high cost of houses is supply. There is not sufficient supply. Again, it is a complex, complicated issue. Bill C-39 would not necessarily address that directly, but indirectly in a way, yes, it would, because we would be improving infrastructure.
One of the issues on the housing side, one of the factors that are holding construction back, is also the poor state of municipal infrastructure in many cases right across all provinces, including in my province and in my riding in particular. The basic municipal infrastructure, such as sewers, water treatment plants and things like that, is holding back construction as well. Therefore, if we are able to accelerate processes and accelerate building, then that would contribute.
Again, let us not forget the demand side: the increase in incomes that can occur in a sustained way only if the economy becomes more productive. That requires massive investment, and the principal objective of Bill C-39 is to make sure that required investment will take place. It has been particularly complex, and it takes quite a bit of time for a major project to be approved in Canada, and clearly what we would do is to massively accelerate that project.
There are three components to Bill C-39. We are going to build now, and we have to accelerate movement and be strong for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member identified many of the challenges and problems within the Canadian economy, one being a lack of investment in basic infrastructure across the country. I wonder if he would remind Canadians which party has been in government for the last 11 years and presided over this deficit in infrastructure despite the promises it made in each of its four elections.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House since April 2025, as have many of my colleagues, and the Prime Minister has been leading this country since April 2025. What we are focused on is improving and accelerating the pace of economic growth in Canada in a sustainable and meaningful way.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way.
During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39.
Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that; that is not what we are doing. Give me a break.
What we are doing is speeding up the process. We are not scrapping regulations. We are speeding up the way in which regulations are reviewed.
I want to add one final point. This is not an excuse. It is not because of Trump. This is the reality. The U.S. administration has irreversibly changed the Canada–U.S. relationship. We must adapt to this new world. It is not an excuse. It is not something that will magically disappear in 2029. It will not disappear.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary touched on a very important topic, of course, which is working with provinces in a spirit of co-operative federalism. As the parliamentary secretary has, I have served in a provincial legislature, in my case in Nova Scotia. I wonder if he could touch a bit on that and talk about the importance of working with provinces in a spirit of co-operation to execute on important bills such as Bill C-39.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, yes, the member, I and several other colleagues in the House were also in provincial legislatures, and it is extremely important that the federal government and the provinces are able to co-operate. Ever since April 2025, we have clearly been in a period of co-operative federalism. We talk with the provinces, we collaborate and we move forward together. That is the only way we are going to achieve something. The provinces are onside, generally speaking, and we are ready and willing to co-operate with them further.
Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had building Canada, with all kinds of great promises and platitudes saying that the government is going to do this and that. Almost a year and a half later, we have building Canada strong, and the member opposite stands to make the same promises that the Liberals are going to do this and that. However, Canadians have not seen anything happen. In fact, I will quote the member's own speech: “we need to get things done”. He also said that we need to speed things up. It has been a year and a half, and he has the audacity to stand there and say that.
Does the member opposite believe that the Liberals can continue to fool Canadians with yet another set of promises and nothing getting done? It is completely embarrassing.
Mr. Speaker, that is a good one: “nothing getting done”. Someone much wiser than me once said that whatever is exaggerated becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, we have had a great example of that in the House because for about a year and a half or so, everything has been consistently and continuously exaggerated.
We are moving forward. For that, we need significant legislative change. That is what we would be doing here. It would be a significant legislative change, which at the end of the day, I suspect, the Conservatives will actually approve. I think they will vote in favour of Bill C-39, but now they are just going off and saying things.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made it very clear. He wanted us to be able to expand trade beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Back in July, I had the pleasure of being at the same lunch table with the Minister of International Trade. We had the opportunity to sit down with the Prime Minister and the President of the Philippines, where we talked a great deal about trade.
Trade between Canada and the Philippines is an important step forward to expand opportunities to enhance our relationship. Two-way trade between Canada and the Philippines is critically important. Our Minister of International Trade is carrying the ball to ensure that we can achieve a trade agreement with countries like the Philippines, India and more.
[Translation]
Franco-Ontarian Day
Mr. Speaker, on September 25, we proudly celebrate Franco-Ontarian Day.
In northern Ontario, our francophone heritage is deeply rooted in our communities and our schools. From Timmins to Kapuskasing, from Hearst to Cochrane, from Chapleau to Kirkland Lake, our francophone schools have played a vital role in preserving our language and culture. In Timmins, the Catholic secondary school has, in fact, long been counted as one of Ontario's top francophone schools.
Today, I want to pay tribute to our teachers and to all those who continue to help our francophone community flourish. I would like to thank our teachers, the guardians of our language, and I wish everyone a happy Franco-Ontarian Day.
Franco-Ontarian Day
Mr. Speaker, on this September 25, the green and white flag flies proudly over Nipissing—Timiskaming, from Earlton to Temiskaming Shores, from North Bay to Astorville. Franco-Ontarian Day invites us to celebrate the contributions of francophones to our province.
Today I would like to acknowledge my parents, who have kept the French language alive in our family. I am thinking of my 96-year old father, who is still with us and who taught me to love our language and our roots. Today, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren carry that heritage with pride.
I wish my father, my family and all my constituents a happy Franco-Ontarian Day.
[English]
Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce Awards
Mr. Speaker, Brockville, Ontario, is home to outstanding businesses, organizations and community leaders. I want to congratulate the winners and recipients of the 67th Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce Awards of Excellence. I congratulate Wajahat Khaleeque, the business person of the year; Sheena Earl, the young professional of the year; Terry Wills, citizen of the year; and Dane Fellows, who received the President's Award.
Congratulations also go to Rob and Kim Williams at Canadian Tire Brockville, the business of the year; Rick and Tanya Orr at the Butcher Shop, small business of the year; the folks at the Downtown Brockville BIA, which won the Tourism Award; the Brockville Rowing Club, which received the Community Excellence Award; and Jackie at Anthophile Café, who is the recipient of the Ben TeKamp Memorial Award.
I want to congratulate all of the finalists, all of the nominees and everyone who took time to recognize them. I thank Pam Robertson and everyone at the chamber of commerce for helping us to highlight the excellence in Brockville that is seen across Leeds and Grenville. Congratulations to everyone.
[Translation]
Franco-Ontarian Day
Mr. Speaker, today, September 25, is Franco-Ontarian Day.
As a proud Franco-Ontarian, I want to pay tribute to those who keep our language and culture alive in Ontario and beyond. As the member for Orléans, I am also very proud to represent a dynamic, bilingual community where French is at the heart of our identity. With its 20 French-language schools, including the newest one, Marie-Soleil, and strong organizations such as the Mouvement d'implication francophone d'Orléans and the Centre des métiers Minto, Orléans is a major driving force behind the vitality and future of Ontario's Francophone community.
Our Francophone community is enriched by its many accents, stories, and voices. It is this diversity that makes our language so beautiful and powerful.
[English]
It is also wonderful to see so many francophiles joining us in celebrating this important day.
[Translation]
Let us celebrate our heritage and the future of Ontario's francophone community. I wish everyone a happy Franco-Ontarian Day.
[English]
Mid-Autumn Festival
Mr. Speaker, for thousands of years, families of Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese heritage, and others, have gathered beneath the autumn moon to celebrate family, gratitude and harvest, but this tradition is not new to Canada. Chinese communities have been living on the land we now call Canada since even before Confederation. Chinese artisans first arrived on Vancouver Island as early as 1788, and tens of thousands more arrived in British Columbia in the decades that followed. They brought their traditions and languages with them, but they left their conflicts behind.
They did not come looking for a handout. They came looking for opportunity. They worked and raised families. They served in the armed forces. They built businesses, new towns and a railway that connected Canada. Despite barriers and enormous hardship, they persevered and helped build this country from the ground up. Generations later, their descendants enjoy the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship that earlier generations fought so hard to attain.
This Mid-Autumn Festival, we celebrate not only an ancient tradition but one that is deeply rooted in the Canadian story: people coming here for freedom and opportunity, working hard, contributing to their communities and proudly calling Canada home.
Happy Mid-Autumn Festival.
[Member spoke in Chinese]
[English]
2SLGBTQI+ National Monument
Mr. Speaker, this summer Canada's newest national monument, located here in Ottawa, was unveiled. It is called Thunderhead, and it pays tribute to those affected by the LGBT purge and generations of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians who fought to be seen, heard and treated equally.
I am especially proud that this national monument has deep roots in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre. It was designed by Public City Architecture, led by my constituents Liz Wreford and Peter Sampson, in collaboration with artists Shawna Dempsey and Lorri Millan and knowledge keeper Albert McLeod.
Inspired by the power and energy of a thunderhead cloud, the monument is a place of remembrance, healing, resilience, joy and hope. It helps us understand where we come from and fills us with valuable lessons as we chart a path toward a more hopeful and inclusive future.
I offer huge congratulations to Public City and the entire team on creating this lasting contribution to our country.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, Canada has seen an explosion in crime. The Liberals' soft-on crime policies have allowed hardened, violent criminals out on bail and house arrest. I encounter off-duty RCMP officers who tell me it is so bad that the drug dealers they arrest are back out on the street in mere hours. One such case in my community cost the life of a young girl, when a dangerous criminal on house arrest kidnapped and drowned her.
Conservatives want to repeal Liberal bail policies and house arrest for violent criminals and to lock up violent repeat offenders. We want to bring in mandatory prison time for extortionists, human traffickers and fentanyl dealers. We want to end lenient sentencing discounts for violent non-citizens that are designed to prevent them from being deported.
It is time for the Liberals to get on board and reject their 10 years of failed soft-on-crime Liberal policies that have unleashed chaos on our streets.
Conservatives will always stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians. It is time for the Liberals to do the same.
[Translation]
International Translation Day
Mr. Speaker, September 30 is International Translation Day.
I would like to take a moment to commend the vital work done by the federal government's translators, interpreters and terminologists. These dedicated individuals work behind the scenes to ensure that parliamentarians can work in their own language and that francophones have access to all democratic institutions and public services.
Let us face it. Most of the discussions and documents that come out of this Parliament are in English. We cannot use French as a shield against Donald Trump and then turn around and regard it as an unnecessary expense that needs to be cut. While being a useful tool, artificial intelligence can never replace human judgment and a nuanced understanding of human language. We will not attract the next generation of talent by allowing people's working conditions to deteriorate. A strong internal capacity within the public service is essential to preserving French.
We have experienced people with valuable expertise. Let us take care of them.
Gender Equality Week
Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating Gender Equality Week.
Today, 71 women sit as members of the Liberal caucus—the largest women's caucus in the history of Canada's Parliament—where they exercise strong leadership. Women also play a crucial role in our cultural sector, an area that means a great deal to me. They represent 54% of Canada's artists. That number, however, conceals a glass ceiling affecting artistic leadership: 23% of male artists hold executive and production positions, compared to only 12% of female artists.
I want to take this opportunity to call attention to the strong female leadership that is alive and well in the cultural sector of my riding, Thérèse-De Blainville. Recently, Claudia Dupont took over from Chantal Lamoureux as Odyscène's executive and artistic director, backed by a predominantly female team that actively contributes to showcasing our culture on a daily basis.
They are a great example to follow. This week, let us celebrate them as we continue to work toward achieving gender equality in Canada.
[English]
Government Accounting
Mr. Speaker, if a CEO took control of a company and invented new financial definitions to make the books look better, shareholders would have questions, but if he could not even apply those definitions consistently, they would ask if he even understood his own definitions. This is exactly what is happening with Canada's finances.
The Prime Minister invented new definitions used nowhere else in the world. The PBO said that he relabelled $94 billion of operating expenses as investments. The IMF has called for greater alignment with international standards and independent verification. The new PBO says that classifications cannot be independently replicated and are being used inconsistently. In the financial world, this is completely unacceptable.
I call on the Liberal government to scrap this fake accounting scheme.
[Translation]
Knights of Columbus
Mr. Speaker, members of Council 5281 of the Knights of Columbus have been active in our community since 1962.
Over the decades, the Aylmer Knights of Columbus have given generously of their time and energy to build a stronger, more caring and supportive community. Their actions are guided by a simple conviction: to care for one another. Whether they are holding a fundraising campaign, helping a family, hosting a community activity or engaging in a quiet act of kindness, charity remains at the heart of their work.
This way of doing things has been passed down from one generation to the next in Aylmer for 65 years. On October 17, let us celebrate all those who built this council and those who continue this work and ensure its future.
I wish Aylmer's Council 5281 of the Knights of Columbus continued success and thank them for their 65 years of service to our community.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are big on talk and short on results. They are trying to convince us otherwise, but Canadians are struggling under the weight of rising rents, transportation costs, and grocery prices.
Canadians and the people of Saint-Augustin—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier deserve better. The government needs to take real, immediate action so that people can pay their bills.
This is what the Conservatives propose. First, lower the cost of housing by cutting federal tax on the construction of new housing and by encouraging municipalities to issue permits faster, free up land and lower costs. Second, lower the cost of fuel, which will lower the cost to motorists and lower the cost of transporting the products that end up in our grocery baskets. We propose cutting all federal fuel taxes until Canada Day. Third, cut the GST on vehicles made in Canada to make them more affordable and to protect our auto industry.
Canadians want concrete and effective measures now.
[English]
Local Summer Events
Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to be back in the House representing the amazing people of Kanata, Stittsville, Carp and Bells Corners.
This summer was filled with moments that highlighted the absolute best in our community, from the Bells Corners Summer Bash to celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Kanata Seniors Council to visiting residents on Canada Day at Tweedsmuir on the Park to the groundbreaking of the new Hindu temple to visiting with families at the Kanata multicultural festival. The warmth and strength of our community inspire everything I do.
I return to Parliament this week focused and energized by our government's work to build a strong and resilient Canada. I thank my amazing community for a wonderful summer. I am ready to bring their voices back to Parliament Hill and keep working hard alongside our government to build a stronger Canada for all.
Food Bank Use in Manitoba
Mr. Speaker, new numbers from Harvest Manitoba should concern every member of the House. In March, more than 61,000 Manitobans accessed a food bank, and more than half of them were children. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, food bank use in our province has increased by more than 150% since 2020. Today, an average of nearly 25,000 Manitoba households rely on food banks every month, which is more than double the number from just a few years ago.
Behind these numbers are parents trying to feed their children, seniors stretching fixed incomes, and working families who simply cannot keep up with the cost of the basics. Manitobans are working hard, but too many are being forced to turn to food banks just to put dinner on the table. This should not be accepted as normal.
Canadians need a government focused on lowering the cost of living so that working families can afford the necessities and get ahead again. It is time to implement our Conservative economic action plan, which will deliver real—
[Translation]
Franco-Ontarian Day
Mr. Speaker, glory to my fair flag, the flag of Ontario's francophones. Today, we are celebrating the 51st anniversary of our beautiful Franco-Ontarian flag, which was recognized 25 years ago by the Ontario legislature as our official emblem. The flag remains a powerful and unifying symbol of the Franco-Ontarian community.
As a proud Franco-Ontarian, I want to pay tribute to all the francophones and francophiles who contribute to enriching our culture and promoting our identity. Preserving our heritage, making our voices heard and asserting our place within Ontario society remain collective responsibilities.
Today is a day to celebrate our community's vitality with confidence and determination, while looking ahead to tomorrow. To put the focus where it belongs, we need to stand up and celebrate. Long live the Franco-Ontarian community, long live the francophonie and happy Franco-Ontarian Day.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sold Canadians on his financial credentials, and then when they were not looking, he took advantage of that trust by inventing financial definitions used nowhere else in the world. He relabelled $94 billion of expenses as investments. This is like calling a grocery bill an investment. The former PBO and the IMF called them out, and now the new PBO has gone even further by saying that these invented definitions are not even being applied consistently.
Why is this Liberal government destroying the integrity of Canada's books?
Mr. Speaker, our plan is to spend less on government operations and prioritize investments that generate long-term benefits for Canadians, such as major projects, housing, clean energy and infrastructure that will help grow our economy and attract private investment. We have adopted a transparent capital budgeting framework that reflects the distinction between capital and operating spending so that Canadians can see clearly how public money is being invested.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if a CEO invented new financial definitions that were used nowhere else in the world and then applied them inconsistently, shareholders would wonder if he did not know how to budget or if he was trying to manipulate the budget.
The Prime Minister stood in front of international investors and said that he would balance the operating budget a year early, but he is using invented definitions used nowhere else in the world, and on top of that, they are being used inconsistently. Will the Liberal government restore our original financial definitions and scrap this fake accounting scheme?
Mr. Speaker, I will put our Prime Minister's credentials on the economy up against a leader who has been in this House entering his third decade. He has produced nothing in this House.
We just hosted the Canada investment summit, where we attracted $500 billion of investment for Canada to build our economy strong. On this side of the House, we are going to do what is needed to build Canada strong. It is time for that party to get on board.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying near record high fuel prices. Justin, from my riding, is raising four children on a single income. He has to drive 65 kilometres to work because he cannot afford to live any closer, and now he can barely afford to get to work due to skyrocketing fuel prices.
Why will the Liberals not help folks like Justin by adopting our Conservative plan to save Canadians money by lifting not just one tax, but all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day?
Mr. Speaker, my empathy goes out to Justin and all families that may be struggling with the cost of living across Canada.
Our government has been committed to ensuring that Canadians can keep more of what they earn. We cut income tax for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We extended relief at the pumps through the suspension of the fuel excise tax, which is now extended to January 2027. We enhanced the GST rebate, called the groceries and essentials benefit, and introduced the largest deduction of new business investment in 50 years.
My question is this: Why do Conservatives keep voting against tax relief?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of touch, blaming everyone but himself for skyrocketing fuel prices. He blames foreign factors. Yesterday, he blamed the provinces, but it is his industrial carbon tax and clean fuel standard that are hiking prices.
Instead of playing the blame game, why does the Prime Minister not simply control what he can control and lift all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day, saving the average family $1,200?
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is slightly preoccupied with the words he sees in his hand and the lines he is given by his party, but it is a news flash perhaps to him, and not to anyone else in this House, that we are in a trade war. The Strait of Hormuz has been blocked. The oil price shocks that Canada is experiencing are consistent with those in every other country in the world.
What our government is doing is suspending the fuel excise tax. We did it over the summer, and now we have extended it by another five months. That is significant support at the pumps for Canadians. We are doing this while investing, making generational investments in our economy to grow our economy, which we will stay focused on every step of the way.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of disastrous Liberal management, life is becoming increasingly expensive for Canadians. This government keeps wasting tens of billions of dollars on international aid, fake asylum seekers, mass illegal immigration and the disastrous Alto project. It is time to start saving Canadians money.
Will the Liberals agree to the Conservatives' proposal to suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues opposite that the price of diesel is high in Canada, the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and even Brazil and Japan. This situation is international, caused by an interruption in crude oil deliveries.
We are helping consumers and Canadians through the social programs we have put in place. Our colleagues are not fond of social programs. We know that, and now we know that they would get rid of them all.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are completely out of touch with reality. Can they stop trying to save the planet and start looking after Canadians?
This week, I talked about Chantal, who has three children and is struggling financially. Today, I want to talk about Nick and his partner in Beauce, who dream of buying a home. After 11 years of Liberal government, house prices have tripled. For thousands of young people, that dream is now out of reach.
Will the Liberal government adopt our Conservative economic plan to leave more money in families' pockets?
Mr. Speaker, seriously, there is one thing I do not understand. Honestly, I think it is a bit of a shame. What does international aid have to do with house prices? What is keeping Nick from buying a house just because we are providing international aid to countries facing difficulties? Give me a break. What sort of world do the Conservatives want us to live in?
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that Bill C‑39 does not lower environmental standards.
Let us imagine a pipeline project in Quebec, like Marinvest. Under Bill C‑39, pipelines are exempt from environmental impact assessments. The only assessment will be the one completed by the energy regulator in Calgary, which has never seen a pipeline it did not like. Worse still, Ottawa wants to be able to allow proponents to start their work before the assessment is complete.
How can anyone claim that this is not a step backwards?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois said that we were meddling with Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Of course, none of that is true. Today, it is saying that we are going to ignore environmental assessments. That is not at all the case.
There will be very robust environmental assessments when it comes to pipelines and any other process or project that is federally regulated.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House is right. The goal of Bill C-39 is not to lower environmental standards. It is to eliminate them.
If a pipeline were to go through Quebec, here is what Bill C-39 sets out for the environmental assessment. The energy regulator in Calgary will be the one to make the final decision. It is made up of seven commissioners, and five of the seven come from the oil industry.
At the table are TC Energy, Shell, Pembina Pipeline, Canadian Oil Sands Limited and Cenovus Energy. Meanwhile, scientists and Quebeckers do not have a seat at the table.
If we are not at the table, are we on the menu?
Mr. Speaker, first, the energy regulator in Calgary is the Canada Energy Regulator, just like the space agency in Saint-Hubert is the Canadian Space Agency. Regardless of where these organizations are located in the country, we have regulators that make us the envy of the world and that have access to sound evidence and science. The Bloc Québécois keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, but unfortunately, none of it is sticking.
We are going to move faster and provide jobs and economic opportunities for all Quebeckers and Canadians.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we could call it pipeline spaghetti.
Bill C‑39 also undermines workers' rights. At the federal level, strikes always play out the same way. Employers allow negotiations to deteriorate while they wait for Ottawa to put an end to them using section 107. That would not change.
What is changing is that Ottawa is now going to tell unions when and how to begin negotiations. It would also be able to stop negotiations by invoking vague concepts of national interest and social disruption.
According to the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Bill C‑39 would give the government the power of life or death over the right to strike. Why would anyone trust the federal government with that power?
Mr. Speaker, honestly, they just keep throwing spaghetti at the wall. What we are doing is setting limits and guidelines for the use of section 107. The Government of Canada does not want to meddle in collective bargaining. We want to support the parties, both labour and management, so they can finalize their collective agreements, agreements—
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, Daniel from Dryden shared with me the financial strain he and his family are facing. They are living paycheque to paycheque, and despite working hard and following the rules, it is nearly impossible for them to maintain their home.
After 11 years of inflationary Liberal policies, this is the stark reality facing many Canadians, and it is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to adopt our economic action plan, which would cut taxes on food, fuel and work, so families can have hope that tomorrow will be better. Will the Liberals adopt our plan so that hard-working Canadians like Daniel can afford to live again?
Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with families like Daniel's, I want the member opposite to realize that the government is focused specifically on families like Daniel's.
We have introduced the groceries and essentials benefit, for example, and over 17,000 families in that member's riding are going to be receiving their next cheque on October 5. That is meaningful support, up to approximately $1,800 for a family in his riding this year.
If the Conservatives want to talk about affordability, they should come on board to our plan, which is focused on making sure that Canadians have money in their pockets to pay the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all talk, no results. If their plan were working, we would not be facing an affordability crisis. Now, 63% of Canadian workers say that their biggest financial stress is the cost of living. According to the National Payroll Institute, half of employed Canadians spend all of their net pay or more just to be able to keep up with rising costs.
I will ask again, why will the Liberals not adopt our plan to cut taxes so that hard-working Canadians can afford to live?
Mr. Speaker, there is a plan on the table that is working for Canadians, and it is the Liberal plan. It includes doing things like making sure that families such as Daniel's have affordable child care, which is saving families in Ontario over $10,000 per year right now. It is ensuring that families in the member's riding have access to the Canada child benefit or to a national school food program so that Daniel's kids can go to school and actually have food in their stomachs. It is a program that the Conservative leader called bureaucracy yesterday.
If the Conservatives want to stand here and fight for families, then they should come on board and stand—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, harvest is here, right now, this very moment. Combines, tractors and grain trucks are starting up and pulling into the field. It is go time. Hopes and plans come to the test. Will the weather hold? Will there be a breakdown? What will the prices be? Everything is on the line. It is supposed to be a payday, not a pay more day.
Diesel prices are at near record levels in Canada. Farmers are facing nearly double what they paid last year. One combine can now cost more than $1,100 a day to fuel. Why is the Liberal government making Canadian farmers pay so much for diesel just to bring in their harvest?
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that, and this is certainly true on this side of the House, all members of Parliament know the important work that Canadian farmers do across the country. That is exactly why we have eliminated the excise tax on gasoline and diesel. It is why we have increased business risk management programs. It is why we have introduced the national food security strategy, which is over three billion dollars' worth of targeted support to the agriculture sector and the agri-food sector across the country.
We have a plan to help support farmers in the country. That member is from farm country. What should be a little embarrassing to the Conservative Party is that, a year ago, when they had the opportunity to present their plan, there was nothing for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch. They are all talk and no results. Canadian farmers are already paying 32¢ a litre more for diesel than Americans are. Now potential restrictions to U.S. exports threaten to drive costs even higher.
Conservatives are calling for an immediate action plan for relief on diesel prices; a cut to all federal taxes; a secure, reliable Canadian supply; and the use of every available legal power to get Canadian energy to Canadian consumers. The Liberal government is all talk, no results.
Farmers need lower costs. Will the Liberals adopt the Conservative plan to lower fuel costs and save Canadian farmers some money this harvest?
Mr. Speaker, we have been focused on lowering costs for farmers. That is exactly why we have an action plan for reducing regulatory tape with the CFIA and the pesticides regulatory directorate. I do not know if the member shared that with the farmers in his constituency. I certainly have in my neck of the woods in Canada.
The member talks about the importance of market access. I do not ever hear the Conservatives talking about the seven billion dollars' worth of agriculture and agri-food market access that the government established in China or the work we are doing to establish market access around the world, whether that is in Europe or the Asia Pacific. The Conservative Party does not even talk about the work that the government is doing to support farmers across the country.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, Clifford is a senior from Oshawa who called my office this week to share his struggles. He is on a fixed income and is having difficulty paying for rent, buying his groceries and even affording the medication he needs to survive. These are life's necessities, not luxuries. The Conservatives have a plan that would actually work to lower inflation and save Canadians money on all of life's essentials.
Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians like Clifford and other Oshawa seniors can finally afford their rent, groceries and medication?
Mr. Speaker, we know that all of Durham region is benefiting from the work our government is doing to create a stronger economy in Canada, while supporting a strong social safety net that we take pride in protecting.
We are creating jobs because good-paying jobs are the best way to address affordability. In our region alone, the Pickering nuclear plant refurbishment is over 30,000 jobs, and the new nuclear project at Darlington makes that number over 50,000 good-paying jobs in Durham region. That is jobs for our youth and for workers coming out of our auto plants who may need new work. That is good news.
Mr. Speaker, Steve Van Raalte in my riding texted me. He is a heavy-duty mechanic who is frustrated with the price of diesel. It has been cutting into his bottom line. The Liberals are out of touch, and Canadians like Steve are out of money.
There are at least two companies in Alberta that are working to develop diesel fuel out of natural gas, and this would reduce our reliance on American diesel fuel, yet because of the Liberals' lost decade, banks will not fund them, insurance companies do not insure them and there is zero support from the Liberals.
Will the Liberal government adopt our Conservative action plan so Steve can finally afford diesel fuel?
Mr. Speaker, it is stories like Steve's that have compelled us to act on housing affordability in this country. That is why we have launched Build Canada Homes to build affordable housing at scale across the country. That is why we have increased our rebate for the GST, working in provinces like Ontario and others to bring those costs down. That is why we are investing in infrastructure, housing-enabling infrastructure, that reduces development charges. This is about ensuring that, whether someone rents, buys or pays a mortgage, affordability is improving, and we are going to continue in this regard.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the region I represent in northern Ontario is an economic engine for all of Canada with mining, forestry and agriculture. Removing all fuel taxes until Canada Day would improve productivity and reduce the costs that are passed on to Canadians. This would also go a long way for individual families in Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Matheson, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Chapleau and all the villages around.
Will the Liberals adopt our plan to remove all fuel taxes?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleague a happy Franco-Ontarian Day. In answer to his question, I would also like to make two points.
This week, our government introduced two very important bills that go hand in hand. We introduced Bill C-38, which comprehensively addresses affordability issues, and I could name others, considering the numerous initiatives introduced over the past few months. We also introduced Bill C-39, which is going to create good jobs and strengthen our economy. That is what Canadians in our ridings want.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberals are exploiting the public's fear of Donald Trump.
Let us not forget that, under the pretext of fighting tariffs, they gave themselves the power to circumvent all environmental laws in order to build pipelines. That is irresponsible, but at least the Bloc Québécois managed to get a sunset clause added so that it would expire after five years, because Donald Trump will no longer be in office in five years' time. However, in Bill C‑39, they are repealing that provision. They want to circumvent environmental laws for good.
Does this not prove that the tariff crisis is basically just an excuse for them to bulldoze over everything?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his important question. As a Quebecker and a former employee of Quebec's environment ministry, I am very pleased to answer it today.
Our proposal is simply about speeding up the response. Quebec's environment ministry wanted to review its own environmental laws and its environmental impact assessment legislation. It has the same goal, specifically, one year. That is all we are doing.
Laws and regulations are not being repealed. When we grant ourselves powers, conditions will be attached. We will be rigorous and—
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing through Bill C-39 is nothing new. It is rooted in the concept of a permanent state of emergency. That is when a government exploits a crisis, a temporary situation, to impose changes that are actually permanent and that would never be acceptable under normal circumstances.
The Liberals are using the trade war and Donald Trump to introduce permanent rollbacks that will impact the environment, workers' rights, land protection, endangered species and more. The Liberals are not doing this to protect Quebeckers; they are doing it to line the pockets of the oil companies. Have they no shame?
Mr. Speaker, I have two pieces of advice for Bloc members today. First, if they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, Canada and around the world, they should get on board with the high-speed train, which will slash greenhouse gas emissions. Second, they could enthusiastically get behind the Churchill Falls project. The federal government brought Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador together to reach an agreement on a project that will create 23,000 jobs, meaning employment opportunities for Quebeckers, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the economy.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month in Richmond Hill, multiple armed suspects forced their way into a family home, assaulted the residents and opened fire in the house with a gun. Families in my community should not have to wake up wondering whether violent armed criminals will be kicking down their door next. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies, it is arrest by day and bail by night. All Canadians are hearing is plenty of Liberal talk, but no results.
When will the Liberals keep Canadians safe and repeal weak Liberal bail, house arrest and catch-and-release to lock up extortionists, human traffickers, car thieves, burglars and violent criminals?
Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, earlier this year we passed an amount of transformational legislation that speaks to criminal justice reform. First and foremost, we have Bill C-14, which strengthens bail as well as sentencing, and Bill C-16, which ensures the rights of victims are protected. We will continue to support public safety and invest in our frontline officers, including hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel, as well as 1,000 CBSA officers.
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians are aware, the Liberals are talk, talk, talk, but no results, but people in Richmond Hill want to know when they will actually feel safe in their own homes. Conservatives have called for tougher bail and sentencing rules, and real consequences for violent repeat offenders, burglars, car thieves, extortionists and violent criminals, to keep Canadians safe. Instead, the Liberals are doing the opposite. This spring, they made mandatory minimum prison time optional with Bill C-16, and earlier this year, each and every Liberal voted down our Conservative jail not bail act.
When will Canadians finally see a justice system where victims are not the ones feeling like they are being held in house arrest?
Mr. Speaker, let me share some of the early results from the justice reforms that we brought forward. Extortion is down 10% across Canada. Firearms offence is down 14%. Homicide is down 16%, which is the lowest in a generation, and child sexual abuse and exploitation is down 21%.
We will continue to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and continue to invest in law enforcement, to ensure that all Canadians are safe, and not just safe, but also feel safe.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, six people have been charged following a major police operation that led to the seizure of drugs and firearms on Manitoulin Island. Drug trafficking fuels other, more serious crimes in northern communities. It contributes to addiction and overdoses that cost our health care system millions of dollars. The Conservatives have a plan to keep Canadians safe.
When will the Liberals follow our example and start taking this issue seriously?
Mr. Speaker, since our government took office, keeping Canadians safe has been one of our top priorities. Since we were elected, we have passed three major pieces of legislation in collaboration with provincial governments and law enforcement agencies across Canada, all of which support these laws. They are the Combatting Hate Act, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, and the Protecting Victims Act. It seems to me that the federal Conservatives are the only ones opposed to these laws.
[English]
Mr Speaker, in Richmond, the RCMP says shoplifting has increased dramatically over the last five years. Some offenders were arrested twice in one day. This is Liberal catch-and-release in action, and Richmond small businesses and store clerks are paying the price. Liberals talk but deliver no results. Conservatives will lock up repeat offenders.
When will the Liberals stand with law-abiding Canadians and repeal their reckless soft-on-crime policies?
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have passed significant legislation that has the support of every single major police organization in this country. That is the same legislation the Conservatives have obstructed and delayed every step of the way.
The question I have for the Conservatives is, how much money did you fundraise off the very delays that you created?
Before I move on to the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, this is just a reminder to the parliamentary secretaries for ministers not to use “you”. It is through the Speaker to the member. Do not speak directly to other members.
The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.
Mr. Speaker, these out-of-touch Liberals have spent years allowing repeat offenders to cycle through our justice system while law-abiding Canadians pay the price. Violent offenders, burglars and car thieves deserve real consequences, not endless bail, house arrest, and catch-and-release. Canadians are tired of watching the same criminals return to the streets again and again.
When will the Liberals stop siding with repeat offenders and start standing with the Canadians who obey the law?
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, the bail and sentencing reform act, the combatting hate act, the protecting victims act and the act respecting lawful access, every single one of these pieces of legislation strengthens our public safety and enhances our national security. They have been supported by our national security apparatus and by every major police organization in the country. The only group of people who have not supported these pieces of legislation are members of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Health
Mr. Speaker, Terry Fox inspired a nation with his fight against cancer. Fifty years later, his dream of raising money for the fight against cancer still lives on. Yesterday, the Minister of Health announced that the government is providing $80 million to the Terry Fox Research Institute for the institute's work in precision oncology research.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell this House how this investment is accelerating research and bringing more personalized cancer care to patients across the country?
Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this House has a loved one who has fought cancer, and all of us know how important it is that we continue to honour Terry Fox's legacy with bold ambition. Our investment in precision oncology is an investment in a more personalized approach to cancer care, one that reduces harmful side effects and makes the treatment more likely to work. No one wants to lose a loved one to cancer, and this investment should give hope to all of us.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, if the United States wants to raise costs on its businesses, we must respond by lowering them on ours so that we can out-compete them, not out-tax them. Conservatives believe in the ingenuity of Canadian businesses to create, invent, produce, expand and hire Canadians, but businesses need the Liberal government to repeal its antidevelopment laws, its capital gains taxes on reinvestment in Canada, and the industrial carbon tax on aluminum, steel, fertilizers, energy and everything else.
When will the Liberals adopt our plan and do so?
Mr. Speaker, the member calls for a focus on economic renewal in this country. We have an opportunity as members of Parliament in this House of Commons to support Bill C-39, a bill that is focused on building up this country. We used to build things in this country. We used to do that, and that is exactly what this government wants to do.
We call on Conservatives to put aside partisanship, much along the lines of what former prime minister Harper did quite recently. He put aside partisanship for the benefit of this country. Let us work together.
Mr. Speaker, he must be really upset with the government that has been in power for the last 11 years. Canadians need results. Hundreds of projects and their applications are waiting for federal approval because the government spent the last 11 years piling on red tape and bad laws that kill high-paying jobs. Last year, the Liberals asked Parliament for extraordinary powers to exempt major projects from its own laws so that projects could be built at unimaginable speeds, and yet nothing has happened and there are no results.
When will the Liberals clear the backlog, approve projects, get shovels in the ground and save Canadian jobs?
Mr. Speaker, I remind my Conservative colleagues, with great respect, of course, that if they do not want to listen to Liberals, I suppose that is fine. They can listen to Conservatives. Stephen Harper has already been mentioned. They should listen, especially, to Premier Danielle Smith. My colleague is from Alberta. Most members of the Conservative caucus are from Alberta. They ought to listen to the Conservative premier of that province, who is working constructively with this government to ensure that the country is building and to ensure that jobs are the focus, so we can ensure a future for our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer meeting with citizens and talking to families, workers and young people. One thing kept coming up: There is a real disconnect between what the Liberal government is saying and what ordinary Canadians are facing.
Samuel, a young father, wrote to me and said, “To be honest, I feel like we're heading in the wrong direction, and most of the people I talk to feel the same way”. What Samuel wants is to save money, and the Conservative plan would enable him to do that.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to Samuel and all those who feel as though the Liberals are completely out of touch with their reality and are using the trade crisis for political gain rather than actually doing something to make things better?
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Charlevoix, in my colleague's riding, to meet with farmers and food processors. This beautiful region is joining together to make life more affordable for the people of Charlevoix and the surrounding areas. We are going to make the food more affordable by working together through the national food security strategy.
We will create jobs in my colleague's region throughout the processing sector. Laiterie Charlevoix and others will benefit from this.
Mr. Speaker, here we have another plan that is completely out of touch. The Liberals are always talking about programs they are implementing by sending cheques to Canadians.
The problem is that the Liberals have put us in the hole with their years of deficits. The deficit will be $65 billion this year, with a projected deficit of $60 billion per year for another five years. The cheques they mail out just add more money to the debt. We Conservatives want to save Canadians money.
Can the Prime Minister explain to us why these cheques to Canadians should be seen as a gift when they actually saddle our young people with debt for generations to come?
Mr. Speaker, during my visit, I also met with the reeve of the Charlevoix RCM. He supports many of the government's affordability measures.
Our measures mean more municipal infrastructure. Our strategic investments in infrastructure will support the creation of more housing in my colleague's region. In addition, children will have access to the school food program, which is set to be rolled out in schools in my colleague's riding.
I hope he sees that we are working hard for the people in his riding.
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, just after this Prime Minister's big meeting in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French media announced that France will now be fishing 1,500 tonnes of snow crab on the Canadian continental shelf, to be caught by a French vessel and processed on the French islands. This will cause DFO to reduce Canadian quotas, harming the livelihoods of fishermen and plant workers in the riding I represent.
Why is the Liberal Prime Minister more interested in cozying up with his European buddies than standing up for the livelihoods of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
Mr. Speaker, Canada will always protect our sovereignty and our fisheries, full stop. The Prime Minister has been clear. Details about any future arrangement with the European Union will be presented to all Canadians. The member is back to his old scare tactics, but our government is focused on growing Canada's seafood economy.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister may have the authority, but he certainly does not have the right to trade away the future of fishermen and plant workers just to gain momentary access to Europeans. Giving France 1,500 tonnes of snow crab to catch on the Canadian shelf is history repeating itself.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau traded away our fish to Europeans in the sixties, seventies and eighties. The question is, will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the European carnage of Canadian fisheries and cancel his modern-day giveaway of Canadian coastal livelihoods?
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries just made it absolutely clear. Notwithstanding all the theatrics we have on that side from the member, we will always stand up for the Canadian fishery. We will stand up for the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we already have.
I wonder if the member has told fishermen in his community about the $1 billion that this government has put into small craft harbours. I wonder if the member has actually engaged his constituents and talked about the $10 billion that our government put into Churchill Falls as part of the agreement that will create 23,000 jobs in this country, including a lot in his province. Is he doing his work to share the work that this government is doing in his province?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is not familiar with this issue.
The Liberal government has turned its back on Canada's fishing industry. The Prime Minister is abandoning our sovereignty in favour of Europeans, who have a long history of destroying Canadian fish stocks. Yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries bragged about how she hung out with fishermen in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon.
Conservatives stand with Canadian coastal communities instead of those on the French islands. Will the Liberal Prime Minister change course and cancel this deal with France to protect Canadian livelihoods?
Mr. Speaker, the member can stand up in this House and talk about the Prime Minister undermining our sovereignty, but it is fundamentally not true. As I have already put on the record, the Minister of Fisheries, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of this country are making very clear that we will not be shedding one single element of the sovereignty of our fisheries in Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, let me go on the record again and remind the member that there was one billion dollars' worth of small craft harbour investment. Under the Conservative government, our harbours had deteriorated.
We are investing in the fisheries. We are investing in processing through the national food security strategy. We will be there for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, last year, I warned the government that wildfires, landslides and accidents regularly shut down Highway 97, leaving Okanagan residents stranded. The Liberals responded that they were committed to working with provinces to find a solution that works for everyone. Since then, the Bald Range wildfire cut my region in two, and this week, a serious accident closed the Bennett Bridge for hours. West Kelowna mayor-elect Stephen Johnston said, “we need immediate action to create greater stability”.
Will the Government now honour its commitment, work with British Columbia and upgrade the FSR 201 before the next closure becomes a crisis?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, my sympathies go out to all the people who were affected.
I absolutely agree that we want to work with British Columbia every step of the way to deal with climate change and with the wildfires that are happening. That is why we have invested so much money this year, for example, in water bombers. When provinces called upon us for assistance, we were able to provide extra aircraft. We have the Canadian humanitarian workforce program, where we were able to provide supplemental volunteers to assist British Columbians when British Columbia asked us for assistance.
We have made it very clear to the B.C. government that we will work with British Columbia every step of the way.
Internal Trade
Mr. Speaker, there has hardly been a more challenging time for Canada's small wineries, craft breweries and distilleries. My bill, Bill C-262, would allow Canada Post and other carriers to ship their products directly to Canadians across provincial borders. When I tabled my bill this past March, the minister responsible said he supported the goal of removing these barriers.
With President Trump's ban on Canadian alcohol imports taking effect next week, our small producers need action. When will the Liberals get off the sidelines, adopt my bill and let our producers sell their made-in-Canada products directly to Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have had meetings about this. We have worked together. When people on the other side of the aisle work together, it works okay. When people work with provinces and territories, it works.
Next week, we are going to be sitting down with the provinces and territories, working chapter by chapter to get rid of interprovincial tariffs, including for direct-to-consumer alcohol. All the federal barriers are gone for interprovincial. Now it is time for the provinces and territories to do their part. I am willing to work with our colleagues and work with the provinces and territories to make that happen.
[Translation]
Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, this week is Gender Equality Week. It is an opportunity to celebrate how far we have come and to acknowledge how far we still have to go. The full and equal participation of women is essential to building a strong Canada for all and to reaching our goal of becoming the strongest economy in the G7.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House how our government intends to advance gender equality in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my very determined colleague, who is proud to serve in a government that includes 71 female members. These women are determined—I use this word for want of a slightly stronger one—to continue to advance gender equality.
Now that Parliament is back, I am of course going to call on all members of Parliament to work on this issue.
To date, we have invested nearly $1 billion to advance this issue. What would help most is to support social programs that primarily benefit—
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there were headlines in all major newspapers across Manitoba. For the second time in a year, there is a blockade on a public road that prevents licensed, regulated hunters from accessing public Crown land. There are no provincial closures on this road or on the land.
The province has done the science and set the quotas. Hunters have the legal authority to hunt during hunting season. The only people acting out of order here are those imposing the blockade. Imagine the standard that is being set.
Why will the minister not instruct the RCMP to maintain law and order in northern Manitoba?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we have every confidence in the RCMP to do their job. It is their responsibility to ensure that laws are adhered to, and I have every confidence that those in Manitoba will execute and discharge their duties as required.
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is the government's mandate. There is a blockade on public infrastructure and public land blocking licensed hunters during a short hunting season. Some of these hunters have waited years for this opportunity. Canadians have a charter right to freely travel, and there is no provincial designation restricting access to Crown land or the roads in the area in question.
The RCMP will not deal with it, likely because the NDP minister in Manitoba and the Liberal minister here in Ottawa condone the blockade. These are the same Liberals who are hell-bent on taking away our hunting rifles and our right to fish for salmon. Are they trying to take away our right to public land too?
Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat that the RCMP has operational independence, and in Manitoba they are contracted to do their job in Manitoba. I will assure the member opposite that the RCMP discharges their duties within their operational requirements. I can assure the member opposite and everyone in this House that the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction that can take care of this.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as Remembrance Day approaches, military chaplains representing many faiths are deeply concerned about government instructions issued over the summer directing them not to reference God in prayer or spiritual reflections. This instruction defies a unanimous motion passed by the House in November 2024 that affirmed the rights of chaplains not to be restricted or punished for referencing God in prayer or reflections.
I have raised this issue with the Minister of National Defence. Will he explain why this instruction was issued over the summer and confirm that chaplains will face no consequences for carrying out their sacred duties?
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces is strengthened by the diversity of its traditions and the backgrounds and beliefs of its members. The policies to support diversity are a moral and ethical responsibility of the Royal Canadian Chaplain Service, the chief of the defence staff and CAF leadership. In their commitment to care for all, they have made a decision that the spiritual health and well-being of CAF members are vital to operational effectiveness, and they have, of course, brought in guidelines that do not ban private or personal faith.
Families, Children and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, we know that access to good, nutritious food can make all the difference in a child's day. Kids deserve to learn on a full stomach so they can reach their full potential, not to mention the obvious benefits to families with lower grocery bills.
Can the secretary of state tell us what our government has done to ensure access to good food programs across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Scarborough Southwest for her excellent advocacy.
Nutritious meals at school do indeed help kids reach their full potential. They also help ease the pressure on grocery costs for families.
With federal investments, school food programs are now reaching 400,000 more students across Canada. In Ontario, this means approximately 242 additional schools are serving meals this year, bringing the total participation of Ontario schools to 92%. The other side foolishly calls this bureaucracy. We call this more children learning and thriving.
Correctional Service of Canada
Mr. Speaker, CORCAN is the inmate skills development wing of Corrections Canada. Last year, it employed 608 individuals, at a cost of $66 million, to educate only 1,056 inmates. That is an annual per-student cost of $62,000, about half the cost of tuition at Harvard University.
What kind of education did the inmates get? They were taught rudimentary tasks like shovelling manure, picking apples and sewing pillowcases, none of which will help them to find jobs upon release.
Why does the government allow CORCAN to achieve so little at so great a cost to taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, let me just assure my colleague. I have had the opportunity to visit many prisons in the last year and a half. I have also had a chance to look at the core programming undertaken by CORCAN and the training that is undertaken and given to individuals, and I have had the chance to look at the remarkable success, including from ensuring there is training in construction. Just last month, I had the opportunity to visit an institution in Saskatchewan with Her Excellency the Governor General. We saw the actual impact CORCAN has on individual inmates, and it will prepare them for a life of employment once they get out of prison.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, indigenous peoples and environmental groups warned that Bill C-5 lets the government override environmental protections and constitutionally protected indigenous rights in the name of the so-called national interest, but apparently that was not enough. Now with Bill C-39, the Liberals are expanding their power to fast-track major projects and weaken those same protections.
After a summer of wildfires burned homes to the ground, why does the government keep bending the rules for corporations while trampling on indigenous rights and putting our environment at risk?
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear in the House that we acknowledge that constitutional rights are important. We acknowledge that consultation must take place, but we also must be able to get to answers in a quick and timely way.
We know that what we are doing with Bill C-5 will advance indigenous interests, with meaningful equity, meaningful partnership and meaningful participation from indigenous communities. I ask the member opposite to take a look at the legislation.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, watching the recent investment summit, I had a sense of déjà vu. At COP26, then UN special envoy on climate finance, our current Prime Minister, announced the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. The world's largest banks and investment firms committed over $100 trillion for the transition to net zero. Five years later, the only net zero is the investments promised by these firms.
How will the investments promised at the recent Toronto summit differ from the Glasgow promises?
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to choose between strong environmental protections and building major projects efficiently. We can and must do both. That is why we are working with provinces and territories to cut duplication and make assessments more efficient, while upholding Canada's world-leading environmental standards and respecting indigenous rights. On top of this, we introduced environmental mapping in our nature strategy to integrate conservation and project planning, to keep nature protected and to build Canada right. Our focus remains on building well, streamlining processes and cutting duplication, not corners.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Public Safety and National Security
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with regard to the disclosure of information to victims.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present more signatures on a petition calling on the federal government to designate Trans-Canada Highway 11 as a project of national interest.
[English]
These signatures were collected at the White Birch General Store, one of many local businesses helping people across northern Ontario add their voices to this important cause. Every signature matters. It shows the continued support from our communities for a safer and more reliable Highway 11 segment of the Trans-Canada Highway. I will continue bringing their voices to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with the member of Parliament from Port Moody—Coquitlam, to present an e-petition on behalf of over 2,400 Canadians seeking to designate February as Canadian Chinese heritage month. I stand, with national support from coast to coast, with many organizations and cities across the country joining our movement.
The contributions of Chinese Canadians over the past 230 years deserve recognition. Our government's message this year has been about building Canada strong. Chinese Canadians have been doing so since before Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna to present e-petition 7258, in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-262 in order to allow beer, wine and spirits produced by Canadian producers to be shipped by Canada Post or other trusted carriers to anywhere in the country. This is in recognition of the work done by Ron Kubek of Lightning Rock Winery in Summerland.
As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has put a ban on Canadian importations. Now is the time for the government to act and to help out producers such as Ron Kubek and all the great small family wineries, distilleries and breweries across this great country.
Mr. Speaker, in our first week back, I am privileged to rise again and present a petition on behalf of residents in the town of Georgina and in Brock township on Lake Simcoe about an invasive species known as water soldier. It was discovered in 2024 in Cook's Bay and has continued to spread across Lake Simcoe. It is a threat to human health and to animal health in the lake, as well as to native aquatic plant species in the lake.
The petitioners are calling on the government to designate sufficient resources toward remediation and to identify water soldier as an invasive species. Last, they are calling on the federal government to nominate a single party to represent the federal government on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island.
The first petition is from members of the Malahat Legion Branch 134 and residents across Vancouver Island who note that over 2,400 Canadian Armed Forces members have died on Canadian soil since 1914 in the line of duty in peacetime. Petitioners ask the government to designate October 22 each year, starting this year, as peacetime service and sacrifice memorial day, and they also ask that the national flag be lowered in recognition of those who have sacrificed
Petitioners offer special thanks to the members of the Malahat Legion for their service to our community.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from members of the Public and Private Workers of Canada and from the United Steelworkers from the recently closed Chemainus pulp and paper mill.
The petitioners note that hundreds of Vancouver Island forestry workers laid off since March 2025 are among the thousands from British Columbia. They note also that the extra 20 weeks of EI that was announced in June 2025 was not applied equally to them and expired in April 2026. The petitioners also note that the $50-million workers support fund announced in August 2025 has still not been released in British Columbia.
Petitioners are asking the government to approve that the B.C. labour market development agreements with the federal government be released immediately, and to extend EI extensions until April 2027 so they may be applied equally to all the laid-off workers from that facility in my riding.
Southern Resident Killer Whales
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House to present a petition of deep concern to constituents. It relates to the very pressing issue of the critically endangered population of southern resident killer whales.
The petitioners note that with the expansion at Roberts Bank, which is a very devastating ecological project, as well as the increased oil tanker traffic, there is a need to protect whales. Their habitat shrinks when they are in an acoustic environment, when there is noise and there are vessels too close.
I know I have summarized. However, unusually, the key action component of the petition I am presenting has been acted upon, so I now add a note of thanks. The petitioners ask for the same distance requirements that Washington state put into place: that recreational and whale-watching vessels stay 1,000 metres back from this threatened population. In fact, the Government of Canada has now adopted the same regulations as Washington state. It is a rare occasion to present a petition and also thank the Government of Canada for acting on it.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to orders of the day, I believe there is a point of order stemming from something that happened during question period.
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was repeatedly carrying on a very high-volume monologue, the purpose of which, I believe, was to interrupt the ability of members who were posing questions to concentrate and to ask their questions properly. That, of course, would be a violation of Standing Order 16(2), which states, “When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between that member and the chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.”
During my own remarks, which were dealing with an aspect of Canadian correctional services, the member was speaking so loudly that it was very difficult for me to concentrate.
One of the goals of producing an effective debate in the House is to have us be capable of speaking in a normal speaking voice, as I am doing now, as opposed to yelling at each other. Had I been yelling, I think I could have successfully drowned out the member's yelling, but it is very difficult to carry on a civilized debate when this kind of, frankly, uncivilized behaviour is going on.
I have no idea if that constitutes something for which the member should apologize. One cannot retract a loud voice, but whatever the situation is, I seek your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to apologize to the member for interrupting him. I do know that from time to time many members of the House get excited when listening to others discuss stuff, and certainly I am not the first person to ever heckle, but it does not mean it was right. Therefore, I apologize to the member and certainly withdraw my statement.
I thank both gentlemen for resolving this in a civilized manner, which is much appreciated, and for quoting Standing Order 16(2), my favourite standing order as members of the House know.
I believe there is another point of order, not on the same matter, from the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in question period it can be very difficult to have everything running the way you would want, but I will bring to your attention that the hon. member, the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency, in his response to a Conservative member's question, did indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to use a member's last name. In fact, the use of the term “long-term” effect, is salting his statements—
I do not believe that is a point of order. I have not heard a last name that would have been used, of one member or another member. I am going to rule that out of order.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: I invite the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna to take direction from the Chair and just allow me to finish. The member is still talking, but I have risen, so none of this is in Hansard right now.
This is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate, and the member knows that. If members get really creative and start to make acronyms out of first letters that they are using, then maybe the Speakership will have to rein it in at some point if it brings disorder to the House. During question period, it did not bring disorder to the House, which is one of the rules for whether something is deemed parliamentary or unparliamentary.
Now I am going to invoke Standing Order 10, which says that no member can debate with the Chair. I am going to invite the members not to debate on the Chair's ruling on this matter. They are free to take it up in the future if it is repeated again by other members and they would like the Speaker directly to intervene.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Building Canada Strong Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that his government was going to build at speeds not seen in generations, and I will give him this much: He was right, because Canadians have not seen a government build this slowly in generations.
A year and a half ago, the Liberals came before Canadians with Bill C-5 and told us that everything was about to change. We were told that Canada was entering a new era, that projects would finally move quickly, that investment would finally flow and that the Liberal government was going to unleash construction at a pace Canadians had not seen in decades.
Eighteen months after the Liberals took office, Canadians are still left waiting. Not one new project has been approved by the Liberal Major Projects Office. Approximately 500 projects are still waiting for approval, and the government that promised historic speed has produced historic delay. The only thing the Major Projects Office has managed to accomplish is to establish a brand new Liberal bureaucracy and hire Liberal insiders and friends of the Prime Minister as new high-priced bureaucrats at the taxpayers' expense. It is no wonder the Major Projects Office is being touted as the major photo ops office.
Now, eighteen months later, the Liberal Prime Minister has returned to the House with Bill C-39, another piece of legislation approaching 250 pages. The Liberals are once again telling Canadians that this time they have finally found the answer. Well, we have heard this before.
For years, Conservatives have told the government exactly what it needs to do if it wants to get Canada building. We have told it to approve major projects within six months; repeal the antidevelopment laws Liberal Bill C-69 and Liberal Bill C-48, which are still on the books; eliminate unnecessary duplication between governments; adopt a one project, one single review system; and provide investors with the certainty that if they put billions of dollars into Canada, they will actually have a reasonable opportunity to build something here.
Instead, the Liberals have spent years creating more layers of regulations, more uncertainty, more Liberal bureaucracies and more opportunities for delay. Then, after creating the problem, the Liberals arrive in the House every couple of years with another enormous piece of legislation announcing they are going to solve it. That is the pattern that Canadians have watched for more than a decade: create a Liberal-sponsored problem, announce a new Liberal program, create a new Liberal office, hire more Liberal bureaucrats, hold a Liberal press conference, hold a Liberal photo op, declare victory and then wonder why nothing gets built.
Canadians are not going to judge this legislation by its partisan Liberal title, by the Liberal press releases announcing it or by the talking points that Liberal ministers repeat on state-sponsored mass media. Canadians are going to judge it by whether it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and actually gets projects built.
The problem Canada faces today is not a shortage of Liberal announcements. The Liberals are only good at delivering announcements and strategies drafted by Liberal consultants. These new offices are usually staffed by Liberal insiders, these frameworks are usually crafted by Liberal strategists, and Liberal memoranda of understanding have no legally binding effect. We have Liberal ministers travelling across the country standing beside maps and artists' renderings of things that might one day get built. What Canadians are missing are completed approvals, shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and projects actually being constructed.
Pipelines do not carry energy products because they appear on some Liberal government list or on a website updated by a Liberal staffer. Mines do not produce critical minerals because a Liberal minister holds a press conference. Ports do not have another container moved because a Liberal memorandum of understanding with no legal effect has been signed. Factories do not employ Canadian workers because somebody in Ottawa created another Liberal advisory council drafted by some Liberal consultants.
At some point, the Liberal government has to stop announcing that it intends to build and start allowing Canadians to actually build. That is the fundamental problem with the Liberal approach over the last decade. The government acts as though economic growth is something that can be produced by Ottawa through more legislation, more regulation and more bureaucracy, when in reality, Liberal governments do not build most of these projects. Workers build them. Private investors invest in them, businesses operate them, engineers design them, tradespeople construct them, and entrepreneurs take the risks necessary to actually make it happen.
The government's job should be to establish clear and reasonable rules, protect the public interest and then get out of the way. Instead, Canada has become a country where somebody can be prepared to invest billions of dollars, employ thousands of Canadians and develop resources that the world desperately wants, and the first question they have to ask is not whether the project makes economic sense but whether they will spend the next decade trying to navigate a Liberal regulatory system. That is not economic strategy. It is Liberal self-sabotage.
The Liberals now say that Bill C-39 will create greater certainty and faster timelines, but Canadians should remember that these are almost the exact same promises and talking points we heard when Bill C-5 was introduced last year. If Bill C-5, more than a year ago, was supposed to get projects moving faster, why do we need Bill C-39?
The Prime Minister said Canada would move at speeds not seen in generations. Canadians looked around and waited, for the past year and a half. They waited for the new mines, the new pipelines and the new energy infrastructure. They waited for the new ports and the new major private sector projects that would create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars of investment. They are still waiting.
The Liberal Prime Minister promised speeds not seen in generations, and instead, Canadians have received delays not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, the Liberals are asking Canadians to believe that the problem was simply that they needed another 250 pages of federal legislation. Canadians are entitled to be skeptical. The issue has never been that Ottawa lacks enough power, regulations, departments, bureaucrats or pieces of paper. The issue is that the government has spent more than a decade making it harder to build anything in the country.
Bill C-69 created enormous uncertainty for major projects. Bill C-48 restricted Canada's ability to export our energy resources from the coast of British Columbia. Layers of Liberal federal legislation overlap with provincial processes. Project proponents face years of consultations, studies, assessments and bureaucratic demands before they know whether they will receive a final answer. While all that is happening, capital, both domestic and foreign, does not simply sit around waiting for Ottawa. It moves, and it goes somewhere. It goes to jurisdictions where governments understand that regulatory certainty matters, where permits can be obtained in a predictable period of time and where political leaders actually want investment rather than merely talk about wanting investment.
Every time that happens, Canada loses more investment. We lose jobs. We lose construction jobs, engineering jobs and manufacturing jobs, and we lose tax revenues that could help pay for health care and public services. Canadian families lose opportunities for the good-paying jobs that once allowed an income to support a family, buy a home and build the future. This is why Conservatives keep coming back to a very basic principle: one project, one review. The government should not require a company to repeatedly prove the same thing to different levels of government, different departments and different regulators. They should streamline the processes and get out of the way.
This brings us to a broader question before us, which is what kind of country Canada intends to become. We possess almost every natural advantage imaginable. We have some of the largest energy reserves in the world. We have critical minerals that our allies desperately need. We have enormous agricultural capacity. We have forestry, energy, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have access to three oceans. We have some of the most talented workers and entrepreneurs anywhere on the planet. Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason Canadians should have to accept economic stagnation, declining investment and fewer opportunities as if these things are somehow inevitable. They are not inevitable. They are consequences of Liberal choices.
Canada has everything we need to succeed here at home. What we need now is a government willing to get out of the way. The Liberals promised Canadians that we would build at speeds not seen in generations. Well, they were right about one thing. Canadians have not seen us build this slowly in generations. Canadians have had enough announcements, enough Liberal studies and enough delays. It is time to get out of the way and finally let Canada build.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-39 is there to support and grow Canada's economy. All one needs to do is take a look at the last 18 months, where we have had a Prime Minister and cabinet going out and encouraging people to seek further trade opportunities for local businesses, to seek investments, to the degree that just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, we saw half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of money, never before seen in Canada's history, because of the relationships with our Prime Minister. I would encourage the member of the Conservative caucus to look at the bigger picture.
Would the Conservatives not recognize that the bill complements that half a trillion dollars' worth of commitments coming over?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member is repeating talking points over and over again, and that one-minute spiel of his is not only raising the noise pollution in this chamber. It is also a testament to the Liberal talking points that have been spouted at Canadians over the last 18 months, which is that they want to do more, but there are no results. All we see is more talk, more announcements and more rhetoric coming from the Liberals.
This entire act is called the building Canada strong act. That is a Liberal partisan slogan, which they now want to enact as federal law. That is the thing about the Liberals. They do not want to get things done. All they want to do is talk a big game and have no results to show for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair.
My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan.
The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional.
What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing up all of the labour unrest we have seen over the last 11 years under the Liberal government. The labour unrest we are seeing all across the country in almost every sector is a symptom. It is a symptom of 11 years of economic mismanagement, of a cost of living crisis that Canadians have to live through, of having the fastest food inflation and the most unaffordable housing in the G7.
This is a Liberal-sponsored cost of living crisis that we are living in, and the rising costs are what is causing the labour unrest we are seeing across the country. If we can address the endless inflationary spending and bring down the cost of living, then Canadians can finally afford to live again, but the Liberals choose to live in rhetoric rather than taking real action.
Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had the Building Canada Act, with grand promises of new organizations, Liberals will do this, they will do that, and with all kinds of platitudes but short on specifics. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North just stood up and said there was half a trillion dollars of commitments, but there are no signatures. There are no deals. There are no new mines. There is nothing.
We now have this building Canada strong act. The Liberals have added the word “strong”. Does the member feel that, under Liberal governance, the Liberals are doomed to continue failing, as they did with the first bill? They have added one word. Are the Liberals doomed to failure through their inaction and announcements, lack of signatures, and lack of actual decisions and projects starting, let alone being completed?
Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a pertinent point. Canadians are still reading and going through the bill, but there is only one thing we know for certain, which is that it would create Liberal bureaucracy, delays and Liberal photo ops. It would be more talk with no results for Canadians.
Canadians are desperate for results. They do not need more Liberal press releases.
Mr. Speaker, we are living through a moment of enormous change. Global markets are shifting, our trading relationships are changing and Canada has to be ready to meet the moment. That means focusing on what we can control and building here at home. We can make Canada a place where businesses want to invest, where projects actually get built, where Canadian goods can reach new markets and where those investments create good jobs for Canadian workers.
That is what the building Canada strong act is about. It would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to major project reviews. It would strengthen the trade corridors and ports that connect Canadian businesses to the world, and it would create the conditions to attract investment, put Canadian capital to work and build a more resilient and independent economy, because certainty matters. Certainty means investment. Investment means building. Building means jobs. All of that makes our economy stronger and more resilient in a world that is becoming less predictable.
However, we cannot do any of that without a strong labour relations framework. The people who will build these projects, operate our ports and railways, move our goods and keep our economy running are Canadian workers. The strongest workplaces are workplaces where workers are treated fairly, where employers and unions have productive relationships and where people can sit down together and solve problems.
That is why the labour measures in Bill C-39 matter. Free and fair collective bargaining is at the heart of our labour relations system. Let me be very clear: We are absolutely committed to workers' constitutional right to strike. The best deal is the deal reached by parties themselves at the table. In fact, our system works remarkably well. Approximately 95% of federally regulated labour disputes supported by the federal mediation and conciliation service are resolved without a work stoppage, but we also know that some of the bargaining relationships become difficult long before anyone reaches a picket line.
This bill is about getting in earlier. It would provide greater support for first collective agreements, including bringing in the federal mediation and conciliation service from the beginning. It would provide earlier support in difficult bargaining relationships and relationship building after a dispute, because anyone who has worked in a workplace knows that a bitter dispute does not magically disappear when a collective agreement is signed. It would also invest in the institutions that make collective bargaining work, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the federal mediation and conciliation service, so that problems can be addressed earlier and workers are not left waiting because of backlogs.
I also want to address section 107 directly, because I know that we have heard concern about it here in this House. Section 107 has existed in the Canada Labour Code for nearly 50 years. This bill does not create a new power. What it does is put new restrictions, guardrails and transparency around how that power can be used.
Before a minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end or suspend an ongoing work stoppage and impose a binding dispute resolution, two new conditions would have to be met. First, a special mediator would work intensively with the parties and provide a report to the minister that would be made public, a key factor for ensuring accountability for both parties and for ensuring that both parties are bargaining in good faith. The appointment of that mediator would not take away the right to strike or lock out. Their job would be to help the parties do what we want them to do in the first place, which is to reach an agreement themselves. Second, there would have to be a national impact assessment examining whether the dispute is or may be adversely affecting the national interest, including the consideration of free collective bargaining and the protected right to strike.
These are real guardrails, and the principle behind them is straightforward: Collective bargaining remains the primary way labour disputes should be resolved. We have heard that recognition from labour. Canada's Building Trades Unions has been clear that it wants strong guardrails around government intervention and wants the right to strike protected, but the CBTU has also recognized the value of improving the process between bargaining and government intervention.
As Sean Strickland has put it, “you've gone through some really substantive steps here to try to get parties to make a deal”. That is exactly the objective, to have more opportunity to negotiate, more opportunity to mediate and more opportunity for parties themselves to find the way forward.
That is only one part of the labour reforms in this bill. Bill C-39 would strengthen protections for the workers we are asking to help build this country. It would crack down on wage theft and worker misclassification. It would strengthen workplace health and safety, including through more inspections and a greater focus on workers' health and safety, and it would protect workers in air transportation when contracts change hands, so they can keep their union representation and collective agreement.
These things matter. A worker should get the wages they earned. They should be safe when they go to work and safe when they come home. When something does go wrong, they should have a labour system capable of responding quickly and fairly.
I want to recognize what the Building Trades of Alberta has said about this bill. There are 19 unions in Alberta. I visited them only last week. These are ironworkers, carpenters, machinists and bricklayers. They have said that they welcome the Canadian government's Bill C-39, which will expedite project approvals and help our job-ready workforce build Canada strong.
I want to finish where I started. We are living in a more uncertain world, but we can control what we build here at home. We can build the projects this country needs. We can move Canadian goods to markets. We can attract investment, create good jobs and make sure Canadian workers share in the prosperity that they create, and we can do it with a labour relations system that protects workers, respects collective bargaining and gives employers and unions the tools to solve problems together, because this moment demands more than resilience from Canada; it demands ambition.
Canadians want to build. We want to invest in ourselves. We want to compete, and we want to give ourselves more of what no country, no trade dispute and no decision made beyond our borders can take away, which is the capacity to build for ourselves, the confidence to bet on ourselves and the ability to determine our own economic future.
That is what this bill would help Canada to do, and it is why I call on all members of the House to support the legislation. Let us get to work, and let us build Canada.
Mr. Speaker, three things caught my eyes. They have been saying “must meet the moment” for 18 months. That hardly meets the definition of “moment”. When speaking of the bill, they said, “where Canadian projects actually get built”. To me, that sounds like they are clearly admitting that the first bill has completely failed. Now the government has added the word “strong”. They talked about strengthening our corridors. Again, that is from 18 months ago, including during their campaign.
My question for the member opposite is this: Why in her own speech is she admitting to and highlighting their past failures, bringing those forward now under a new bill that has added the word “strong”? Does the member opposite expect that Canadians will believe them for this new bill?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of two rounds of public consultations with employers and unions. As well, it follows nearly half a year's worth of conversation and consultation with the tripartite council that we established in order to do the hard work and the heavy lifting to build this bill.
I take issue with the members' framing of this. The government is actually hard at work pushing projects to approval, including the port of Montreal, the Matawinie mine and BHP's potash project. There is the OPG Pickering refurbishment that the Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this week.
These are all examples of projects that are moving forward, but we have to do more, and this bill would get us to one project, one decision, one year.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago.
Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion.
Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?
Mr. Speaker, our unionized workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. This bill takes into account the recommendations made by unions, employers and management representatives during two rounds of public consultations. It seeks to strengthen good-faith bargaining and get better results for workers, employers and Canadians.
As workplaces continue to evolve, labour laws in Canada must evolve with them to ensure that these workplaces remain fair, safe and productive.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, back in January 2023, I had the honour of being invited to an event where the special guest was the executive chairman of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, a very well-known businessman and philanthropist. It was a meeting of Liberal members of Parliament who were interested in business and economic growth. At one point in the meeting, Mr. McCain was asked, “If you had one piece of advice for the Government of Canada, what would it be?” I forget a lot of what happened in the meeting, but I remember his answer to that question. It was that every single federal government department, every single Crown corporation and everything that is affiliated with the Government of Canada should have in their mission statement the word “competitiveness”.
I invite the parliamentary secretary to reflect on that and how it aligns with what we are doing in Bill C-39.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. This legislation is designed to ensure that we can meet the moment. Under the strain and threat we are facing from abroad, it is important that we be able to demonstrate to Canadians that we can move projects forward, be competitive—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today. I will be speaking in the context of this debate on Bill C‑39. I am going to focus on the part that deals with environmental protection.
Between the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2025, I had the honour of serving as director general of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change. During those 10 years, I learned about, discovered and explored all sorts of areas of environmental protection, including industry, transportation and infrastructure. I also worked with committed and dedicated professionals who understand very well the importance of enforcing environmental laws and regulations. That is the lens through which I would like us to discuss the bill before us today.
In Quebec, there was a proposal in 2015 to review the Environment Quality Act. One of the major challenges was the issue of predictability and transparency in issuing authorizations. Quebec committed to fast-tracking and reviewing its processes in that respect.
Interestingly enough, that is the very topic that the Government of Canada is focusing on in this bill, because it is absolutely essential if we are to be able to carry out projects quickly.
Since our colleagues in the House are constantly raising the issue of the speed of our decision-making, it is absolutely essential that we give ourselves the means to make decisions efficiently and quickly, so that developers can build our country and public institutions can swiftly carry out the projects that are essential to the establishment and development of our economic autonomy.
I just want to remind my colleagues of Quebec's objectives, which are public.
The Declaration of services to citizens and businesses states that a permit should be issued within 75 days for any project with moderate environmental impact. In Quebec, the target for the revised Impact Assessment Act is nine months. We are hoping that decisions will be reached within a one-year timeline. That is essentially the process being considered here, not the rigour with which regulations are enforced, and certainly not an encroachment on provincial decisions.
We want to be able to move quickly and provide all developers with accurate information so they can help build Quebec.
Since the beginning of their history, Canadians have built Canada. Previous generations have undertaken projects that have transformed the country. The national railway, which connected communities, helped establish Canada as a continental country. The Trans-Canada Highway is a great example of a project that connected our regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast to coast. Then there is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have some great examples of projects that have been completed and have helped build our country.
That is what we need to do today. We need to do this if we want to become an energy powerhouse. We are going to do this with projects that use fossil fuels, but we are going to transform them with projects that reduce their carbon footprint. We are going to reduce methane emissions.
On top of that, we will be able to implement clean electricity projects. The Churchill Falls project is not isolated only to Quebec. This project will enable us to produce energy that can be delivered to Canadians in the Maritimes and Ontario and that we could even sell to our economic partners. This is important if we want to be able to meet our net-zero targets.
To be able to carry out projects effectively and efficiently, we need to have the means to respond quickly so that we can meet these commitments. That is why we are making these decisions. We are streamlining processes and consolidating permit applications that stem from various initiatives.
In addition, we are finding a way to incorporate them in the same decision. This will have no impact on provincial regulatory frameworks. The regulatory frameworks of the provinces involved in a project must and will apply.
I have some examples. In 2024, Bombardier wanted to relocate its warehouse and found a very interesting piece of land in Saint-Philippe. That project needed to be built quickly given Bombardier's various challenges and deadlines. Rosefellow, which was Bombardier's developer, succeeded and we managed to incorporate the entire analysis under the Species at Risk Act within 75 days. We got involved early in the project and found solutions. Without the ability to incorporate feedback from colleagues and make decisions quickly, Bombardier would not have set up operations in the Montérégie region, and the project, which was announced this summer and is now up and running, not long after it was conceived, would not have come to fruition.
When we read the impact assessment for the port of Contrecoeur, we see everything that was done to ensure alignment and connection with Quebec's laws and regulations. The agreement to protect the copper redhorse was made in agreement with Quebec. We are not substituting or erasing Quebec's constitutional rights. We are proactively working with Quebec so that authorizations are efficient and so that proponents can move forward.
Another example involves the Quebec Central Railway, which connects Lévis and Thetford Mines. It was a project to rehabilitate a rail line, but it ran into some problems. Some of the land on which the rail line was built contained asbestos tailings, which fall under Quebec's legislation. Although this was a federal project, Quebec's laws were applied, and Quebec authorizations were used. There is therefore a way to work in a fast, predictable and clear context. This will allow us to proceed much more efficiently. People have been calling for this.
We are introducing this today because there is a tariff crisis, but there are also other crises. We need to take back control of our economy and boost our productivity. The whole issue of environmental approvals means that we need to be able to do this properly.
I would be remiss if I did not emphasize how central our partnership with indigenous peoples remains to these efforts. Indigenous communities must play a key role in shaping projects that affect their lands, their rights and their future. We can coordinate projects based on clear processes, and we will be able to secure a strong commitment that provides a great deal of certainty to all parties involved.
Let me conclude with this final point. These proposals have been shaped by a deep commitment. Over the past few months, our government has listened to indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments, workers, businesses, industry representatives and Canadians across the country. Canadians emphasized the importance of improving the efficiency of federal processes while maintaining environmental safeguards and respecting indigenous rights. Stakeholders highlighted the need for greater certainty, clear timelines, strong supply chains and modern frameworks that can support future growth.
That made sense to us, which is why the bill before Parliament reflects what we learned from those conversations and seeks to seize the opportunities before us and address the challenges facing our country. Urgent action is required, and that is why we are introducing this bill. We are confident that Canada can make decisions in a timely manner and provide reliable infrastructure. This is not just about improving processes. It is about preparing our country for the future. Let us build a competitive economy, create more opportunities for workers and communities, strengthen our ties at home and abroad and ensure that Canada remains a country where we can achieve great things together.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this piece of legislation, it is important to note that a lot of work has been done in this Parliament already, and very quickly. We passed a lot of measures to enable the government to move quickly on major projects. There was a lot of discussion last year, and it continues, about how existential it is for our country to secure our economic sovereignty and to ensure that we can stand on our own two feet. Of course, that still remains today, but the government is dragging its feet and bringing forward more and more legislation to duplicate a lot of work that has already been done by Parliament.
Why is the government bringing forward more legislation instead of taking action to ensure we can get projects built in Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that our government is dragging its feet. I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but in the few months since we took office, there has already been some acknowledgement of our government's ability to introduce laws and regulations for Canadians.
It is important to create the right conditions. That is Parliament's role. My role is not to pick up a shovel and start digging to build a railway track or a power transmission corridor. My role is to create the proper conditions so that developers who want help build Canada can do so. That is what we are doing here today.
This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress.
I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.
This approach, which resembles what in Quebec is known as the pre-tabling of authorizations, is quite common in countries that take a strict and streamlined approach to environmental approvals.
We are familiar with the projects, and we do not want to expose them to legal challenges; we simply want to create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to how the legislation is part of a bigger agenda the government has for building Canada stronger and healthier. A good example of that, as I have cited on numerous occasions, is the investment summit that the Prime Minister hosted, which generated close to half a trillion dollars of potential commitments coming to Canada. What impact is that going to have on our nation, and how is this legislation there to help support it?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have not said much about it, but almost half if not more of the projects discussed at the 2026 Canada Investment Summit that elicited considerable interest are projects focused on renewable energy.
However, to get these renewable energy projects built quickly and efficiently, and for Canadians to reap the full benefits, it is essential that proponents be given the tools they need to take effective action. As a reminder, these timelines and this integrated work approach are already part of the philosophy espoused by Quebec's environment ministry.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canada is entering a decisive period in its history, as we can all appreciate. Around the world, economies are adapting to new realities, supply chains are being rapidly reshaped and countries are competing to attract investment, talent and innovation. In this environment, Canada has a clear choice to make. We can move with confidence and seize new opportunities or we can allow lengthy approval processes to slow our progress. Our government has chosen to move forward with urgency.
Today I rise to speak about legislation that would help Canada build major projects and many other projects more efficiently, modernize key elements of our transportation and trade systems, and strengthen the foundations of productive and fair workplaces. Together, these measures would help create jobs, attract investment, improve economic resilience and position Canada for long-term success.
Canada begins from a position of strength. We are a country rich in natural resources, home to a highly skilled workforce and supported by strong public institutions. We have the rule of law, we have a great social safety net and we have a strong and stable democracy. We are recognized around the world as a reliable trading partner and a stable place to invest, but strengths alone are not enough. Canada is unfortunately known for quite lengthy regulatory reviews. To achieve the growth and prosperity we all aspire to, we must be able to turn our potential into results.
Throughout our history, Canadians have demonstrated what is possible when ambition is matched by action. Generations before us built projects that transformed our country, things that captured the imagination of the nation. The national railway connected communities and established Canada as a truly continental nation, the Trans-Canada Highway linked regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast, and the St. Lawrence Seaway expanded trade opportunities and connected Canadian businesses to global markets.
These are great accomplishments, but they did not happen by accident. They required vision, co-operation, investment and a lot of determination. Above all, they required people who understood that building for the future often means overcoming challenges in the present. That same spirit is needed today, and that is the spirit of this legislation.
The projects that will define the next generation may look different from those of the past. They may include critical mineral development or supporting emerging technologies. They will include energy projects that enhance economic and energy security. They will involve ports and transportation corridors, electricity transmission, advanced manufacturing facilities, telecommunications infrastructure or other strategic investments that strengthen Canada's economic future. Whatever form they take, these projects will help create opportunity, increase productivity, help us diversify trade and support good-paying jobs across Canada.
The question before us is whether our systems are equipped to deliver those outcomes in a world that is quick-moving. For too many years, in fact, project approvals in Canada often involved lengthy and complex federal processes. Delays can create uncertainty for workers, communities, indigenous partners, businesses and especially investors. In some cases, projects have waited years before receiving the decisions needed to proceed.
In a competitive global economy, time matters. At the investment summit the Prime Minister hosted recently, which I participated in, I heard from investors who talked about how they wanted to deploy money in Canada and wanted to invest in Canada, as they saw Canada as a great place, but they all expressed the fact that we had this reputation for slower approval processes, which we needed to address.
This bill really would address those issues. When decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to tell my hon. colleague that the interpreter has indicated that a cell phone is vibrating near the microphone.
[English]
There seems to be a device near the desk, which is receiving a phone call or notification, and it is causing interference for interpretation. If the hon. member could just move it away and continue his comments, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I was timing myself to make sure I stay on time. I have removed the device from the desk. I apologize to the interpreters.
As I was saying, when decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created elsewhere. Communities that are counting on major economic development projects may be forced to wait, and I believe strongly that right now Canada simply cannot afford to fall behind or wait.
That is why our government is proposing significant reforms designed to improve the efficiency and predictability of federal decision-making. Our objective is straightforward: to provide federal decisions on all projects within one year while maintaining high standards of environmental protection and respecting the rights of indigenous people. This approach is not making Canada a jurisdiction of low standards. It in fact says that we can do both: have high standards and speed up the process. It is not about reducing scrutiny. It is about improving coordination and eliminating unnecessary duplication. Moving from consecutive to concurrent review processes is the key.
Canadians should not have to choose between economic growth and responsible development. We can achieve both together. Strong environmental stewardship and efficient government are not mutually exclusive. A process can be both rigorous and timely.
We need to get to a yes or a no faster, and that is exactly what we intend to do with this legislation. Over decades of experience, Canada has developed significant expertise in environmental assessment and project review. We have learned valuable lessons about how reviews can be conducted more effectively, how technology can support better outcomes and how governments can work together more efficiently, like between provinces and the federal government, for example.
Our goal is to ensure that projects are reviewed carefully, decisions are based on evidence, consultations are meaningful and outcomes are achieved within a predictable time frame. Predictability is key if we want to see the global capital we are competing for get deployed in Canada and really get to work in our communities. It needs certainty in order to flow, and that is exactly what we are trying to provide.
Indigenous partnership remains central to this effort. We recognize that indigenous communities must play an important role in shaping projects that affect their lands, rights and futures. Better coordination and clearer processes can support more meaningful engagement while providing greater certainty to all participants. In fact, a modern project review system should advance economic opportunity, support reconciliation and protect the environment at the same time. We believe Canada can accomplish all three.
Building a stronger economy also depends on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. Transportation networks are the arteries of our economy. Railways, highways, ports, airports and marine corridors connect producers to customers, and communities to markets. They help businesses grow, support jobs and enable trade throughout Canada and around the world. When goods move efficiently, costs are reduced, competitiveness improves and consumers benefit.
That is why this legislation includes measures to strengthen transportation systems and improve Canada's trade infrastructure. Our objective is to support modern, reliable and efficient supply chains that can meet the demands of a changing economy. By reducing administrative barriers, simplifying processes and encouraging investment in key infrastructure, we can help Canadian businesses reach new markets and expand existing opportunities.
These efforts are also important to Canada's broader economic security. As the global environment becomes more complex, transportation systems face new risks and challenges. Supply chains must be resilient and capable of adapting to evolving threats. Secure transportation networks are essential for protecting trade, attracting investment and maintaining public confidence.
The measures before Parliament in this bill, Bill C-39, would help ensure that federal authorities have modern tools to address emerging risks while maintaining transparency, accountability and predictability for workers, communities, indigenous partners and industries. A stronger transportation system means a stronger Canadian economy.
Economic growth also depends on people. Behind every construction project, every shipment and every investment are workers whose efforts make Canada's success possible. Ensuring that workers have safe, fair and productive workplaces is therefore a fundamental part of building a prosperous country.
Canada's federal labour relations system covers more than one million workers and thousands of employers across key sectors of the economy. In most cases, collective bargaining functions effectively and agreements are reached through constructive negotiations. That success should be recognized and celebrated. However, there are instances where disputes can become prolonged and where disruptions in federally regulated sectors can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. Our government's objective is to strengthen the conditions for successful bargaining while maintaining a balanced and effective labour relations framework. The legislation before Parliament includes measures to modernize federal labour protections, improve workplace health and safety, support fair treatment of workers, and address issues such as worker misclassification, wage theft and much more.
Before I wrap up, I move:
That this question be now put.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary, being so well briefed on the subject, will be able to shine some light on it.
In part 3 of Bill C-39, there is a significant change to the geographic certification process. I would ask the good parliamentary secretary to please speak to it, to explain exactly what the government is trying to do and how significant this change would be. It used to be that only a union could ask for certification of this site, but what the government is planning is quite different than that. Also, is the government going to be putting any kind of charter statement on those provisions in the bill?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say about this bill is that it is going to speed up approval processes in this country, from an average of about five years to one year. I think we can all agree that ambition is something that we share, that this country needs to build much faster, that regulatory review processes have lagged, and that the international best practices and standards in this country have weighed down on the possibility of Canada really putting capital to work and competing for global capital. That is really what we are focused on.
I know that the bill also contains measures in terms of improving labour relations and ensuring that the 5% of cases that do not make it through a collective bargaining process have additional responsibilities and layers built in to ensure that the process can be successful for all parties involved.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby?
The CER's lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy.
If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague and I served together on the finance committee for some time previously and I always enjoyed the debates we had.
In this bill, we are not seeking to water down environmental protections. In fact, we are just trying to ensure that we uphold a high standard while moving a lot faster. A timely process really matters when it comes to building big projects in this country, projects like the member opposite would know well, with the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the largest clean energy investment in North American history is sizable, and I am sure the member opposite will agree with me that those clean energy projects are sizable, whether they are transmission lines that cross interprovincial boundaries or new electricity generation through hydroelectric or other renewable sources. In my province, it is nuclear, but these are sizable projects. They need regulatory reviews that are timely so that we can get those big things built in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to strike as constitutionally protected. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us why his government is giving its own minister the power to interfere or replace that fundamental right with binding arbitration?
Mr. Speaker, we will always protect the constitutional right of workers to strike.
We are putting in place measures that have been consulted on. There have been over 26,000 submissions and 78 different engagements that have taken place over many months to ensure that we get this right, which is to really look at those 5% of cases where collective bargaining does not reach an agreement at the table and where there is then risk of the federal government having to step in when there is a strike and use section 107.
The key here is to get parties working together and to find ways to get agreements at the table—
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to acknowledge the work of the firefighters from Lac-Mégantic, Nantes, Lac-Drolet and Audet, who yesterday fought a fire that devastated an apartment block near Lac-Mégantic town centre. Several residents were impacted and lost their homes, and the Red Cross is there to support them. Fortunately, no one was injured thanks to the support and assistance of everyone living in the surrounding area. Once again, I would like to thank the firefighters.
Canadians do not judge a government by the number of announcements or programs it creates. They judge it by what is left in their pockets, by their ability to put food on the table and to look to the future with a little more confidence. Today, too many families are telling us that life is becoming increasingly difficult. It is time to save Canadian families money. It is time to protect Canadians' jobs. It is time to ensure their safety. It is time to fix our immigration system. It is time to put Canada first again. This is exactly the Conservative plan we are proposing to Canadians and that we are asking the government to support.
In the House this week, I talked about Jessy, who lives in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. Not very long ago, she was spending about $120 a week on groceries. Now they cost her about $170 a week. That amounts to $50 more a week, every week. Jessy does not measure the Canadian economy based on numbers, statistics or how many programs the government announces, and certainly not based on the number of press conferences, symposia or speeches that the Prime Minister delivers in foreign countries. She measures it by how much she has when she gets to the grocery store checkout, and how much is left to pay for everything else.
Obviously, she is not alone. We also spoke in the House this week about Olesya, who has to use her credit card to pay rent and feed her family. We talked about Chantal, a single mother in Saint‑Georges who works full-time but still needs to use a food bank. That reality, their reality, is what should guide us here, in the House, with every decision we make. That is why Bill C-39, before us today, deserves our serious consideration.
I hear the government members asking what the connection is between Bill C-39 and Jessy's grocery bill, since Bill C-39 deals with environmental assessments, major projects, permits and federal regulations. However, there is a very simple and very real connection. An economy that can attract investment, carry out major projects and create good jobs provides more opportunities for families and workers. On the other hand, when a project remains stalled for years in a process where no one knows when a decision will be made, the uncertainty ends up costing everyone: the businesses that are waiting for the decision, the workers who are waiting for jobs and the regions who are waiting for the economic benefits of those projects.
We have heard this song from the government before, when it told us that it wanted to fast-track major projects. Eighteen months ago, we were asked to pass Bill C-5 in a rush. What was the bill's purpose? It was meant to decide exactly which major projects could be fast-tracked, because the Prime Minister had said when he was elected that the government was going to move faster than ever before.
Acting in good faith, the Conservatives supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5. Acting in good faith, we figured that, considering the circumstances and the tariff war with the United States, we should do our part, set partisanship aside, collaborate and put Canada first. We believed that the Liberals really wanted to move fast, do better and, above all, get major projects going again.
We are a little disappointed, very disappointed even, with the outcome. Eighteen months on, there are no new major projects and no new shovels in the ground to get them built. We have not seen any new projects to ensure our independence from the U.S. We are therefore a little skeptical.
Bill C‑5 did not do what it was supposed to do, so here we are, 18 months later, with Bill C‑39. The purpose of the bill is to speed up projects and make everything faster. For example, the government wants each project to have a single assessment and it wants projects to be carried out within one year. The bill also amends certain laws, including the Canada Labour Code.
Over the past 18 months, we have seen announcement after announcement. Some projects have been announced. There have been lists of projects, but none of them have been fully completed. Most of the announcements have been about new government structures.
Announcing a project or a bill and actually setting it in motion or implementing it are two different things. A company planning to invest millions or billions of dollars in Canada needs to know what rules it will be subject to, who will make the decision and, above all, how long it will have to wait. According to Bill C-39, it will take a year. A year from when? Does a year mean 12 consecutive months without a single day's break, or is it a year with breaks to allow the government to catch up? The private sector moves quickly. The Liberal government is slow.
Through Bill C-39, the government has given itself the option to pause the clock during the one year in which everything is supposed to take place. According to Bill C-39, the clock starts ticking once the company has completed all the studies required for the submission of its project. Carrying out the studies required for the project's submission means carrying out the studies that the government will ask it to carry out. If the government asks questions and demands study after study to avoid having to start the clock for a year, it is the company that will end up taking all that time to carry out the project.
It is important that we get more explanations and more information about Bill C-39. The devil is in the details when it comes to figuring out whether the government is serious or whether it is merely posturing or grandstanding, claiming that it is taking care of business when nothing is actually getting done.
We want to get everything in place as quickly as possible. We want projects. We want to make Canada more independent and more self-reliant. We want to get projects built. There are over 500 projects in the queue that could be built right now.
Unfortunately, the government has wasted 18 months since Bill C-5 passed, and these projects are still just ideas in the minds of business leaders. We will be lucky if they are still around, because the crisis is getting worse and investors may be less keen to invest. A company in my riding had to adopt job sharing as of yesterday. Because of the tariff war and the countertariffs, this company has to pay between $500,000 and $1 million a week in cash just to stay afloat. I do not think this is the time to be asking it to use its cash reserves to invest in Canada. That is the result of 18 months of inaction by the Liberal government.
We are going to closely monitor the committee's study of Bill C-39. We will see if jobs are being created and if businesses are investing. Above all, we will see if Jessy will have more money in her pocket to pay for groceries at the end of the month. What matters most is that women like Jessy, from Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, or Chantal, from Beauce, have more money and are able to make ends meet. They want hope, hope that they will be able to keep living the life Canada once promised, that is, a life where they can live on a safe street with enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month.
Canadians do not want more announcements. Canadians want real results.
We have time for a very short question.
[English]
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I share the ambition that I think permeated through his remarks today, but some things he got factually wrong.
As to the Major Projects Office and the projects that have been referred, quite a number of them have shovels in the ground, like the north coast transmission line and Contrecoeur, Quebec. For Darlington's SMR project, I can verify that for a fact. I have seen first-hand with my own eyes the construction there. I have actually seen people working on the site. It is incredible. If someone looks, they will see that these projects are moving forward and shovels are in the ground.
We have also seen record business investment and more foreign direct investment than in 20 years. Does the member understand that the—
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
National Strategy for Children and Youth Act
(Bill S‑212. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)
March 12, 2026—Baedon Clark (Sackville—Bedford— Preston)—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
The hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston is not present to move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the order will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 1:31 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 18, the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 5, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer